RE: EMC Directive revisions

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Now I am really confused!! As I understand it the EMC Directive was never
intended to
INSTRUCT folks what tests to run or indeed what levels etc..to demonstrate
compliance.
 
Indeed one of the statements from the SLIM was the Directive per se was just
fine
and that the standards etc were the real problem area.
 
 Are these messages referring to the Guidelines in meeting the EMC
Directive?
 
Has the Directive really changed?

-Original Message-
From: George Sparacino [mailto:george.sparac...@bostonacoustics.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 12:09 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC Directive revisions


Gentlemen..where does one get a copy of the draft for review ?

-Original Message-
From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 9:19 AM
To: 'wo...@sensormatic.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC Directive revisions



Here we go . . . 'indirect' trade barrier . . . forget Class A. 

To whom can we directly raise our concerns (besides product trade
associations)? 

John Juhasz 
Fiebr Options 
Bohemia, NY 

-Original Message- 
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [ mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com
 ] 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 7:39 AM 
To: emc-p...@ieee.org 
Subject: RE: EMC Directive revisions 



Thanks Brian. I have some very serious concerns about this draft. 

Art 3A, 1a: "General" type products appear to have to be able to function in

any EMC environment including industrial. Class A type products just went 
out the window since the product must also be able to function in a 
residential environment. 

Annex II, A1,1: Testing immunity to DC current or voltage on AC 
networks 

Annex II, B.1: Oh great! Now we have to design so emissions are "reduced as 
far as possible." 
 I can just see now that we ship every system is a sealed, welded steel 
container. 

Annex II B.1.1: and B.2.1: If a standard lists several levels of emissions 
and immunity, the product must comply with the most severe limits. They have

to be kidding! 

If this is the outcome of SLIM, I would hate to see the outcome of FAT! 

Richard Woods 

-- 
From:  Brian Jones [SMTP:e...@brianjones.co.uk] 
Sent:  Thursday, March 30, 2000 4:06 AM 
To:  EMC-PSTC 
Subject:  Re: EMC Directive revisions 


Ed, Richard, and everyone 

Following discussions in the SLIM working group, the Commission has 
now 
produced a draft of the revised EMC Directive.  This is a complete 
rewrite, 
not an amendment.  The major change is removal of the requirement 
for fixed 
installations to be assessed and CE marked prior to taking into 
service, but 
the possibility for investigation by enforcement authorities, should

interference be caused, remains.  The distinction between "systems" 
which 
continue to require CE marking, and "fixed installations" is unclear

at 
present. 

It is expected that the draft will undergo further development and 
changes 
at SLIM working group meetings during this year before a draft is 
published 
for comment. 

I will be presenting a paper in one of the poster sessions at the 
EMC 
Symposium in Washington DC, on the latest position. 

Best wishes 

Brian Jones 
EMC Consultant and Competent Body Signatory 


--- 
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety 
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 

To cancel your subscription, send mail to: 
 majord...@ieee.org 
with the single line: 
 unsubscribe emc-pstc 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com 
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org 


--- 
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety 
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 

To cancel your subscription, send mail to: 
 majord...@ieee.org 
with the single line: 
 unsubscribe emc-pstc 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com 
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org 


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

RE: Mars Lander EMC problem?

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hmm - I think we need some on-site research done on this one..

-Original Message-
From: Tony J. O'Hara [mailto:tonyoh...@compuserve.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 10:31 AM
To: IEEE list server
Subject: Re: Mars Lander EMC problem?



Hi 
I thought many people would be interested in this as it looks like the
recent NASA Mars Lander loss was due to EMI/EMC problems!
I have just extracted a small piece of the e-mail report I got! Contact me
directly if anyone wants the entire e-mail.

<>

Tony 
Colorado


  


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Thanks Mike for an excellent post.


-Original Message-
From: Mike Murphy [mailto:mmur...@alesis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 10:56 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS



Brent and group,

I can verify that the CASPPER system does perform this feat incredibly well
in most cases IF you have the right conditions. I've had two demos of their
product, one at our company in Santa Monica and another at an OATS. We
devised quite a few scenarios to test its capabilities. For instance, at the
OATS, we found a strong ambient. Then we took a signal generator (acting as
EUT) and moved it slightly off of the center frequency of the ambient in
order to measure its magnitude. We moved the EUT signal back to the exact
center frequency of the ambient and the CASPPER system was able to remove
the ambient and take a reading of the EUT signal to within 0.5dB of our
reading. We then proceeded to AM and FM modulate the EUT signal and still
the CASPPER system did a great job of reading it.

However, if the system does not get the differential it needs between the
ambient sensing antenna and the EUT antenna, the results are underwhelming.
At the OATS (nestled in a valley) the system had problems with multipaths.
At our company in Santa Monica, the system had problems with multipaths from
high rise buildings and the overwhelming magnitude of some ambients.

I packed these two demonstrations with as many engineers and technicians as
I could in order to get a broad range of skepticism and opinion. Our
engineers who have DSP and communications systems experience have no qualms
about the theory and spoke directly with the CASPPER engineer to quiz him on
what they were doing with regard to coherence. We all were satisfied that
the system can do what it theoretically claims. However, it's a bit finicky
and the ambient antenna placement (or multiple antenna placements) seems to
be critical. At this point, I disagree with the marketing of the product
that it is a virtual chamber in that it in no way removes the headaches of
dealing with the multitude of ambients the way that a physical chamber
would. It may even be that the users of the system become hyper-aware of
ambients as they use the system.

I've asked CASPPER to give me the names and phone numbers of customers who
own the system to see how it's performing for them in the real world and
gauge their customer satisfaction, but have not gotten this information yet.

I'm still a little disappointed that I haven't heard any responses from this
list server to my specific questions on this topic (see my 3/21/00 post).

For those of you who have witnessed their demos:
1. Did the system perform to your satisfaction?
2. Were you convinced enough to purchase it?
3. Was it worth the asking price?

Mike Murphy
Compliance Engineer
Alesis Studio Electronics

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: StripLine

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Presuambly you are referring to a stripline antenna??
Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027
Tel: (303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


> --
> From: Frank Krozel[SMTP:fr...@electronicinstrument.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 11:24 AM
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: StripLine
> 
> Hi All:
> Seem to have misplaced my data on Striplines.
> Is there somewhere on the web that I can find the dimensions to build a
> stripline?
> Frank Krozel
> 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

OATS Ambient Cancellaion - Thank you all

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Thanks to all of you who responded.

I agree with Brent - Lets keep the list EMC & Safety..

-Original Message-
From: brent.dew...@us.datex-ohmeda.com
[mailto:brent.dew...@us.datex-ohmeda.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:41 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Laotian power cords, Thanks!





Thanks to all the folks that answered my question.  I'm glad the group is
not
being split.  It's a great resource just as it is!



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

This issue isn't change - its the gyrations, expense and increased
overhead incurred by manufacturing companies that is the concern
here. 


-Original Message-
From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 7:21 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Certification of Products and other emerging countries



Dear ???

Perhaps "emerging countries" is not the best terminology.
"Emerging standards" may be more appropriate.  First of all,
there is the Commonwealth of Independent States, formerly
the USSR.  For some 50 years under Communism these countries
had little dealings with the Western world, but are all now
at some point in developing standards to participate in the
global market.  Russia, Belarus, etc.

Then there are the former Soviet Bloc countries, sometimes
called Eastern Europe, such as Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary,
etc.  Many already have well developed approval processes,
but some, such as Poland, can be very difficult to completely
satisfy at times.  The good news here is that several of these
very much want to join the European Union, and may even accept
the CE marking in the near future prior to membership.

Japan has long been a well developed nation, but has no product
safety certification requirements for typical ITE product, and
only voluntary (VCCI) requirements for EMC. Meanwhile, China
and Taiwan have relatively recent certification requirements for
ITE.

Argentina only recently began to require IRAM certification for
ITE.

The bad news is that there are still many countries that do not
now have certification requirements, but will probably adopt some
within the next decade.

If you don't like change, Product Safety and EMC are the wrong
fields to be in at this time.

George Alspaugh

-- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on
03/22/2000
09:04 AM ---

rc%twn.tuv@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/21/2000 08:21:01 PM

Please respond to rc%twn.tuv@interlock.lexmark.com

To:   grassc%louisville.stortek@interlock.lexmark.com
cc:   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George
  Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  Certification of Products and other emerging countries




Dear Charles,

REGARDING:
..the emerging countries have been very erratic in the implementation
and enforcement of  EMC legislation...

The emerging countries are quite numerous, can you come up with some actual
examples?

"Grasso, Charles (Chaz)"  on 03/22/2000
02:43:36
AM

To:   Rene Charton/TUV-Twn@TUV-Twn, Kevin Newland 
cc:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:  RE: Russian Certification of Products and other countries

It has been my experience that - with the
exception of the EU and Aus/Nz - the emerging
countries have been very erratic in the implementation
and enforcement of  EMC legislation.

Rene, I must disagree with your comment regarding
scheduled implmentations. Putting incomplete
EMC enforcement/legislation in to force on schedule
is NOT good planning. Kudos to the EMC Framework - that
EMC legislation was advertised and compliance methods
available well before the required date.

If only it were true universally...

-Original Message-
From: r...@twn.tuv.com [mailto:r...@twn.tuv.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:34 PM
To: Kevin Newland
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Russian Certification of Products and other countries

What about

Japan,  Australia&NewZealand, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico...

In many Asian Countries (Taiwan, China, Korea, Hongkong.) rules are
just being set up. This implies that there are frequent changes, but not on
daily basis.

And changes are implemented according to a schedule. Can you show me a
similar schedule for the "stock exchange"? If you can, I will change my Job
immediately.

Rene Charton


Kevin Newland  on 03/16/2000 06:59:11 AM

Please respond to Kevin Newland 

To:   "Maxwell, Chris" , "'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'"
  
cc:(bcc: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn)
Subject:  Re: Russian Certification of Products

Chris,

Just remember that with the exception of Western
European countries,USA and Canada, the rest of the
world (without being rude) have not really have a
solid rule for anything. These countries rules and
regulation changes daily (just like stock exchange)
without any notice or explanation). This is sadly the
real life and we live in it.

Thanks
Kevin



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.

RE: Russian Certification of Products and other countries

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

It has been my experience that - with the
exception of the EU and Aus/Nz - the emerging
countries have been very erratic in the implementation
and enforcement of  EMC legislation.

Rene, I must disagree with your comment regarding 
scheduled implmentations. Putting incomplete 
EMC enforcement/legislation in to force on schedule
is NOT good planning. Kudos to the EMC Framework - that
EMC legislation was advertised and compliance methods
available well before the required date.

If only it were true universally...

-Original Message-
From: r...@twn.tuv.com [mailto:r...@twn.tuv.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:34 PM
To: Kevin Newland
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Russian Certification of Products and other countries



What about

Japan,  Australia&NewZealand, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico...

In many Asian Countries (Taiwan, China, Korea, Hongkong.) rules are
just
being set up. This implies that there are frequent changes, but not on daily
basis.

And changes are implemented according to a schedule. Can you show me a
similar
schedule for the "stock exchange"? If you can, I will change my Job
immediately.

Rene Charton





Kevin Newland  on 03/16/2000 06:59:11 AM

Please respond to Kevin Newland 

To:   "Maxwell, Chris" , "'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'"
  
cc:(bcc: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn)
Subject:  Re: Russian Certification of Products




Chris,

Just remember that with the exception of Western
European countries,USA and Canada, the rest of the
world (without being rude) have not really have a
solid rule for anything. These countries rules and
regulation changes daily (just like stock exchange)
without any notice or explanation). This is sadly the
real life and we live in it.

Thanks
Kevin

--- "Maxwell, Chris"  wrote:
>
> Our sales people in Russia have started the process
> of "Certifying" our
> equipment to sell in Russia.  The two agencies that
> they are working with
> are "Gosstandart" and the "Ministry of
> Communication".
>
> According to them, the certification will consist of
> an inspection of all of
> our existing Compliance Documentation including
> ISO-9000 certification, EMC
> Test Data (for the products of interest), Safety
> Test Data (for the products
> of interest), Environmental Test Data including
> heat, frost, moisture,
> vibration, and blow (what is that?) along with other
> inspections of our
> calibration equipment and methods.  We are also
> being asked to pay for a
> trip to the US for 3 people from the Ministry of
> Communication and
> Gosstandart (6 people total) for 7 days each.
>
> The total is a staggering $44,000 (either cash or
> wire transfer).   Note
> that all of the actions being performed for this are
> "inspections" of
> existing documentation, not actual testing.   So in
> the end, they will
> decide to certify our products based upon existing
> documentation, testing...
> I have never experienced this before.  It appears to
> be a great deal of
> expense for not much substance.  Is this typical?
> Has anybody else out
> there certified products with these agencies?
>
> By the way, we typically classify our product as
> "light industrial test and
> measurement equipment" and already have solid
> testing and documentation to
> to EN 61326-1 (EMC), EN 61010-1 (Safety) and EN
> 60825-1 (Laser Safety).
> Does this give us any kind of out?
>
> Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer
> GN Nettest Optical Division
> 109 N. Genesee St.
> Utica, NY 13502
> PH:  315-797-4449
> FAX:  315-797-8024
> EMAIL:  chr...@gnlp.com
>
>
>
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product
> Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:
> jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:
> pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
>
>
>

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org









---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-p

Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hello - A little while ago there was some discussion of a 
company designing an ambient cancelation device.

Question: Does anyone remember the company??

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Banana Split

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

I support the general comment that more specificity in the
subject line would help in sorting emails.

-Original Message-
From: Lacey,Scott [mailto:sla...@foxboro.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 7:07 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: Banana Split



I apologize for the rather flippant subject line above, but., in
many ways the collection of postings from this forum is like a banana split.
The different flavors blend and complement each other. Many of us have
multiple responsibilities, and some of those who currently don't may be
tasked with additional chores in the future as their corporate employers
undergo a lean transformation. There is a lot of valuable information in
these postings. I have found some gems that were not always directly related
to the subject line.

Scott Lacey
Test Engineer (EMC, Safety, Product Verification)
The Foxboro Company
38 Neponset Avenue
Foxboro, Massachusetts 02035
508-549-3534
sla...@foxboro.com

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: EMC Test Conditions

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Thanks for amplifying your thoughts Gary. I agree with
your concerns for the legal and fiscal implications to the
company. 


-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gmcintu...@telect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 12:59 PM
To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz); Gary McInturff; 'lfresea...@aol.com';
emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC Test Conditions


Charles, we probably don't disagree as much as you think.
First of all let me clear up one point. I am not implying by any stretch of
the imagination not to work with you test house. In 95% percent of the cases
that will suit you very well, and they have in the past saved me some
headaches.  I have every confidence in the labs that I use (or I wouldn't
use them) for this and other testing, I also have reasonable confidence in
my knowledge and experience as well. 
The point I am trying to make is; when the situation isn't crystal clear,
and there are large impediments to getting it resolved,  Then  have to
weight the lab input as well as my own. I  take into consideration who pays
the penalties for being right or wrong, and then make my decision on who to
trust. If the test labs want to head into court for me and accept the full
responsibility or if they want to pony up the $2,000,000 then I always
listen to them. If not I probably will default to my opinion and act
accordingly - again after listening carefully to what the lab says first and
their justifications.
If I have inadvertently offended some test labs I apologize. They do good
work they are not infallible either, and if I have to pay the piper I will
make the ultimate call.
Thanks Gary

-Original Message-
        From:   Grasso, Charles (Chaz)
[mailto:gra...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, March 07, 2000 11:35 AM
To: 'Gary McInturff'; 'lfresea...@aol.com';
emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:RE: EMC Test Conditions

Gary - You make a compelling argument but I must disagree.
I belive that BOTH the user and the testlab need to
cooperate
fully with good faith.

The testlab is afterall the defacto expert in testing & test
standards,
the user knows the product intimately (one hopes!) One or
other
cannot be fully responsible. BOTH together can produce a
good test (again
one hopes).

-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gmcintu...@telect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 12:05 PM
To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC Test Conditions



Derek,
I think I have said this before, but the ultimate
responsibility for
compliance is yours not the test house. Their responsibility
is to have
equipment, staff, and procedures that allow them to make
reliable and
repeatable tests, in accordance with the test certification
documents. In
addition to that, as a customer service they can  provide
you with the
latest in information or technical opinions. Sometimes these
roles get
confused and the test house assumes more responsibility than
they really
have, you certainly can understand why, they are trying to
protect their
reputation. But when in conflict use your own judgement. 
The test house can protect their accreditation and
reputation by making
whatever disclaimers they want about the test setup - but
not how the test
compares to the published limits. They can for example,
state that while the
test sample was measured to be under the required limits
they are
uncomfortable with the test set-up and they cannot assure
the 90% upper
confidence level with this arrangement, or something to that
affect. In fact
if they are following guide 25 for laboratories (part of
their required
documentation for certification)  they actually have, but
may not know it, a
process for documenting customer and test discrepancies and
problems.
Given the number of possible set-ups and equipment
operation and
configuration there is ample room for reasonable and
knowledgeable people to
disagree. But when push comes to shove it is your
responsibility to insure
conformance, and you and your company will be the ones
paying fines,
removing or retrofitting equipment etc, not the test house.
If you are convinced of your position and have
listened carefully to
what the test guys are telling you do as you see fit and let
the test hou

RE: EMC Test Conditions

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Gary - You make a compelling argument but I must disagree.
I belive that BOTH the user and the testlab need to cooperate
fully with good faith.

The testlab is afterall the defacto expert in testing & test standards,
the user knows the product intimately (one hopes!) One or other
cannot be fully responsible. BOTH together can produce a good test (again
one hopes).

-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gmcintu...@telect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 12:05 PM
To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC Test Conditions



Derek,
I think I have said this before, but the ultimate responsibility for
compliance is yours not the test house. Their responsibility is to have
equipment, staff, and procedures that allow them to make reliable and
repeatable tests, in accordance with the test certification documents. In
addition to that, as a customer service they can  provide you with the
latest in information or technical opinions. Sometimes these roles get
confused and the test house assumes more responsibility than they really
have, you certainly can understand why, they are trying to protect their
reputation. But when in conflict use your own judgement. 
The test house can protect their accreditation and reputation by making
whatever disclaimers they want about the test setup - but not how the test
compares to the published limits. They can for example, state that while the
test sample was measured to be under the required limits they are
uncomfortable with the test set-up and they cannot assure the 90% upper
confidence level with this arrangement, or something to that affect. In fact
if they are following guide 25 for laboratories (part of their required
documentation for certification)  they actually have, but may not know it, a
process for documenting customer and test discrepancies and problems.
Given the number of possible set-ups and equipment operation and
configuration there is ample room for reasonable and knowledgeable people to
disagree. But when push comes to shove it is your responsibility to insure
conformance, and you and your company will be the ones paying fines,
removing or retrofitting equipment etc, not the test house.
If you are convinced of your position and have listened carefully to
what the test guys are telling you do as you see fit and let the test house
make its comments in the test file. Then live with the consequences. 
Just an opinion
Gary
-Original Message-
From:   lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, March 07, 2000 7:27 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:EMC Test Conditions


Folks,

the testing of a product at a MAJOR Compliance lab has me
concerned. I have 
two main concerns, they are:

1)   The test item is designed to be bolted to a large
metallic structure 
which cannot be part of my set-up, it costs way to much (
$2,000,000 each ). 
So I have a fixture, which mounts all the components as they
would be 
mounted, using wiring as it would be wired etc. etc. etc.
Because this 
fixture is only about a cubic metre, the lab is telling me I
should test as 
table top equipment. I don't think this is correct.

IMHP, table top equipment is meant to be EUTs like PC,
printers, coffee 
makers, TVs etc. In most cases, the location in which they
reside has very 
little metal in the proximity. OTOH, control systems like
ours, are almost 
always fastened to metal objects. It is important to have
this metal, or a 
simulation of it present, because I've found that otherwise,
there is little 
correlation to the final installation. I also feel strongly
that lifting this 
metal structure 80 cm off the ground plane is a stupid thing
to do.

So, my opinion is that there needs to be a third testing
consideration added 
to table top and floor mounted equipment, that of simulated
installation 
testing. OK, so this would require additional work. But if
this is not 
considered, then results from all these system will vary
dramatically. We 
worry at great length about the setup for table top
equipment, and floor 
equipment. But if systems don't fit in this category, it's
open season!

2)   Since my device can be installed almost anywhere, it is
supplied with a 
3 foot length of flying lead. The intent is for final
customers to extend 
this cable as needed. Here the lab tells me I'm OK testing
with just 3 feet 
of lead My product standard is EN 61326,  which allows
me if my cables 

RE: EMC Test Conditions

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Interesting problems Derek..
 
Some comments: 
1. Testing the device on a table. I'm not sure it is a stupid thing to do.
As I see it this is
a similar problem to rack qualifications. If the EUT does NOT require the
metal support
for any EMC performance (shielding/filter grounding) then testing and
passing on a non-
conductive support would be OK ...and look over here is a convenient table
to put the
equipment on. 
 
2. On the other hand... If you are concerned that the metal support will
detrimentally
change the emissions profile - then you will need the actual structure and
not 
a facsimile. (The table seems attractive to me..)
 
3. I agree with your concerns on the spec. To be so severly limited to
floor/table top
is also a concern of mine.
 
4. On your second concern. This is an issue I feel strongly about. There is
a tendency
to replace good judgement with "letter of the law" thinking. In this case I
agree with
Ed N. I guess the right thing is to look in the documentation to be
delivered to
the customer. If the lab still does not insist on the lab - find another
lab!!
 

-Original Message-
From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 11:52 AM
To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC Test Conditions



I agree with Derek that simulation of 'actual use'/'actual installation' of
the EUT to the best of your ability is clearly the best way to test the
equipment. Anything short of that isn't clearly representative. 

You note that "It is important to have this metal, or a 
simulation of it present, because I've found that otherwise, there is little

correlation to the final installation. I also feel strongly that lifting
this 
metal structure 80 cm off the ground plane is a stupid thing to do". 
As long as the EUT is mounted to your smaller metal structure (1 cubic
meter) to simulate the installation), what concerns do have with regard to
the height at which it is tested? 

Is the product be normally at floor level? Or can it be mounted at any
height? 
If it's normally mounted at floor level (and specified in the 'installation
manual',if you have one), I would indeed fight it.

Regarding your item #2, I am in agreement as well. If there is any question
as to the 
product's compliance by an authority, having gone the 'straight & narrow',
and having it 
documented in the report is better than having less testing done because of
the length 
of the cables. If I were the authority, THAT would be the product I would
pull-in for 
verification of the test results. 

John Juhasz 
Fiber Options 
Bohemia, NY 



-Original Message- 
From: lfresea...@aol.com [ mailto:lfresea...@aol.com
 ] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 10:27 AM 
To: emc-p...@ieee.org 
Subject: EMC Test Conditions 



Folks, 

the testing of a product at a MAJOR Compliance lab has me concerned. I have 
two main concerns, they are: 

1)   The test item is designed to be bolted to a large metallic structure 
which cannot be part of my set-up, it costs way to much ( $2,000,000 each ).

So I have a fixture, which mounts all the components as they would be 
mounted, using wiring as it would be wired etc. etc. etc. Because this 
fixture is only about a cubic metre, the lab is telling me I should test as 
table top equipment. I don't think this is correct. 

IMHP, table top equipment is meant to be EUTs like PC, printers, coffee 
makers, TVs etc. In most cases, the location in which they reside has very 
little metal in the proximity. OTOH, control systems like ours, are almost 
always fastened to metal objects. It is important to have this metal, or a 
simulation of it present, because I've found that otherwise, there is little

correlation to the final installation. I also feel strongly that lifting
this 
metal structure 80 cm off the ground plane is a stupid thing to do. 

So, my opinion is that there needs to be a third testing consideration added

to table top and floor mounted equipment, that of simulated installation 
testing. OK, so this would require additional work. But if this is not 
considered, then results from all these system will vary dramatically. We 
worry at great length about the setup for table top equipment, and floor 
equipment. But if systems don't fit in this category, it's open season! 

2)   Since my device can be installed almost anywhere, it is supplied with a

3 foot length of flying lead. The intent is for final customers to extend 
this cable as needed. Here the lab tells me I'm OK testing with just 3 feet 
of lead My product standard is EN 61326,  which allows me if my cables 
are under 10' in length, to blow away FTB and CI testing. This is ludicrous!

I know now how some of my competitors can claim EMC compliance when they
fail 
in my lab. 

I feel very strongly about issue 1, enough that I would offer to draft 
guidelines to present to whoever makes the rules. On issue 2, there has to
be 
some education, at the moment

RE: Technical Documentation

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Excellent thought - and one that we are moving to.
There are a couple logistical issues that need resolving..
1) one problem there is that
we would have to employ 2 persons fulltime to
perform all the necessary library functions
2) the transmittal of the data (the files can attain several
megabytes) is non trivial. Webdownlaads can take a L..O..N..G
time and email systems typically puke on the file size.

-Original Message-
From: Bruce Touzel [mailto:btou...@acc.com]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 10:37 AM
To: Scott Douglas
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Technical Documentation



why don't you just scan-in your documents and post them on the internal
company
server so that anyone can get it if needed ?

thx
bruce

Scott Douglas wrote:

> I guess I want to toss my 2 cents in here. I am probably going to be found
> out in left field but here's what I do with all this stuff. I keep a 3
ring
> binder where I store copies of all of the safety agency certifications and
> notices of compliance from the EMC test house. I also keep a copy of the
> Declaration of Conformity in the book. I keep one copy of this binder in
our
> UK office, one copy here in my office and one copy here in Document
Control
> (here being our US factory). In addition to the binders, I keep one file
> cabinet in Document Control where I store all safety and EMC test records.
I
> am now adding copies of component proofs to this file cabinet. I do not
> store schematics, fabrication or assembly drawings. Neither do I store
user
> manuals or reference manuals. Tech Pubs and Drafting store all these
> documents and drawings.
>
> Should the need arise, anyone can ask our UK office for a document and
that
> request will be passed on to me. If that request ever comes in, I will go
to
> Document Control and arrange  to collect the necessary paperwork. I am
> certainly not going to create a file of duplicate documents that I have to
> update on an every day basis. So it would seem that my TCF or whatever
else
> you want to call it is actually scattered all over our factory, each
> function keeping their own records. About the only thing I did to these
> other document storage processes was to add the 10 storage requirement to
> their ISO 9001 procedures. One other thing I did was to insert myself in
the
> ECO process such that I sign off on every change order to a tested and
> released product. That way, I won't miss anything.
>
> So far, it seems to be working with minimal fuss. The few requests I have
> had were from non-European countries for test records, specifically from
> South Africa, Australia and Russia. I am sure somebody will tell me I am
way
> out there and really non-compliant. But since I test and certify to
product
> specific (ITE) standards, I do not need to keep "TCF's or whatever else"
at
> a test house / notified / competent body. Therefore, I will not keep such
a
> file here either. I will deliver whatever documents to whomever requests,
it
> may take a few days, but I will deliver. If that is not in keeping with
the
> spirit and intent, then somebody better lock me up.
>
> Scott
> s_doug...@ecrm.com
> ECRM Incorporated
> Tewksbury, MA  USA
>
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>  majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>  unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Technical Documentation

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Scott - We maintain a similar system. That is with
stuff scattered at different points in the company.

I (and you and I think many others) belive that WHERE
access to the documentation is irrelevant. What really counts
is GETTING the documentation to the person that requests it.



-Original Message-
From: Scott Douglas [mailto:s_doug...@ecrm.com]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 10:19 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Technical Documentation




I guess I want to toss my 2 cents in here. I am probably going to be found
out in left field but here's what I do with all this stuff. I keep a 3 ring
binder where I store copies of all of the safety agency certifications and
notices of compliance from the EMC test house. I also keep a copy of the
Declaration of Conformity in the book. I keep one copy of this binder in our
UK office, one copy here in my office and one copy here in Document Control
(here being our US factory). In addition to the binders, I keep one file
cabinet in Document Control where I store all safety and EMC test records. I
am now adding copies of component proofs to this file cabinet. I do not
store schematics, fabrication or assembly drawings. Neither do I store user
manuals or reference manuals. Tech Pubs and Drafting store all these
documents and drawings.

Should the need arise, anyone can ask our UK office for a document and that
request will be passed on to me. If that request ever comes in, I will go to
Document Control and arrange  to collect the necessary paperwork. I am
certainly not going to create a file of duplicate documents that I have to
update on an every day basis. So it would seem that my TCF or whatever else
you want to call it is actually scattered all over our factory, each
function keeping their own records. About the only thing I did to these
other document storage processes was to add the 10 storage requirement to
their ISO 9001 procedures. One other thing I did was to insert myself in the
ECO process such that I sign off on every change order to a tested and
released product. That way, I won't miss anything.

So far, it seems to be working with minimal fuss. The few requests I have
had were from non-European countries for test records, specifically from
South Africa, Australia and Russia. I am sure somebody will tell me I am way
out there and really non-compliant. But since I test and certify to product
specific (ITE) standards, I do not need to keep "TCF's or whatever else" at
a test house / notified / competent body. Therefore, I will not keep such a
file here either. I will deliver whatever documents to whomever requests, it
may take a few days, but I will deliver. If that is not in keeping with the
spirit and intent, then somebody better lock me up.


Scott
s_doug...@ecrm.com
ECRM Incorporated
Tewksbury, MA  USA




---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Question on EN55024 & legacy products

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hello _ I was wondering if this esteemed group could help me here:

As everyone in the ITE business knows EN55024 is soon upon us. The
questions I have are:

1) Legacy products.
I assume that - as long as no changes are made - then EXISTING
products
do not require changes to incorporate the new standards.

Question: Does it follow then if upgrades/enhancements are made
after 7/1/2001 that
modifications in the field may need to be incorporated on legacy
machines to bring
them up to spec?

2) Test Reports
Is there a "time limit" on the quality of test data? For example can
I take
test data from say 1 year ago (Radiated Immunity) and use that for a
brand new DoC with 024 listed?

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: ITE Requirements for India?

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hi Kevin - I would like some clarification here.
In your response you indicate that there
are EMC REQUIREMENTS. 

My question(s):
1. Is there a law requiring this.?
2. If so what is it ?
3. What marks are required?
4. Is there importation controls on ITE equipment
vis-a-vis EMC?

Thanks...


-Original Message-
From: Kevin Newland [mailto:kevin_newl...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 11:56 AM
To: Scott Douglas; EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: Re: ITE Requirements for India?



Scott,

As far as I know, India requirements for ITE is IEC950
and CISPR22. However you can get the latest
information directly from the government officials,
details of which is listed below:

Director ( Central Marks )
Bureau of Indian Standards
Manak Bhavan
9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002 ( India )
Tel : +91-11-3239382, 3230792
Fax : +91-11-3239399,3239382
Email : b...@vsnl.com


Also prepare yourself for a lot of red tapes similar
to Chinese and the Japanese approval process.

Good luck

Kevin


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Korean Immunity - What IS it??

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hello,

Does anyone in this august body know what immunity
requirements need to be met?

Is the testing done in country?

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

FW: Embedded Capacitance Project

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

> -Original Message-
> From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) 
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 10:58 AM
> To:   'Signal Integrity'
> Cc:   Charbonneau, Richard A
> Subject:  Embedded Capacitance Project
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Please find attached information regarding the NCMS Workshop
> on Embedded Capacitance.
> 
> ---
> 
>  <> 
> I have included the text below:
> CONFERENCE DESCRIPTION: The development and use of Embedded Capacitance 
> Date: Feb 28-29th 
> Location: Tempe Arizona 
> 
> 
> Shelly, In case your Adobe still dies on you , I have added the
> texr description below:
> 
> Text Description:
> The Need:
> The need for power-ground decoupling capacitance is nearly
> universal in electronic circuits. Today, the solution to that
> need is found in discrete chip capacitors. These devices
> provide a wide range of capacitance values and many
> excellent properties, such as stability over temperature and
> frequency and reliability. However, use of discrete chip
> capacitors also poses some fundamental problems - prob-lems
> such as the significant cost of producing them in large
> numbers and the amount of surface area they consume on
> the circuit board. In addition, few designers or maintenance
> engineers understand, with any rigor, how many decoupling
> capacitors are truly required, how much capacitance they
> should have, and where to locate them on the circuit.
> In response to these inherent problems, and supported by
> the findings of recent industry roadmaps, OEMs are now
> viewing embedded passives technology as a promising
> alternative to discrete passives in electronics manufacturing.
> Embedding the capacitance in the circuit board frees up
> space that can be used for other functions. The technology
> may also improve performance and reliability by reducing
> the number of solder joints and discrete capacitors, and
> the associated failure modes. In addition, totalsystem cost 
> may also be lowered as a result of parts reduction and circuit
> integration. However,efforts by one company - or even a small group of
> companies - do not have high probability of success.
> The case for a group effort was justified: the investigation
> of multiple materials, with multiple fabricators,produces multiple chances
> for success, with the efforts of each participant being highly leveraged.
> The Project:
> Recognizing the value of a collective solution, NCMS, together with more
> than a
> dozen partners, organized a collaborative effort aimed at advancing the
> use of embedded capacitance technology for power supply decoupling.
> The goal of the project was to encourage the development
> and use of embedded capacitive materials in printed circuit boards. The
> project team focused on the embedding of a single large (distributed) 
> capacitance within the circuit board. The team anticipates
> that this capacitance will be utilized for power
> supply decoupling.
> Commercially available materials and developmental materials were
> evaluated for
> compatibility with the circuit board manufacturing
> process, for materials properties, for reliability, and for
> their ability to perform the decoupling function. The
> project has thus taken some of the first steps towards the
> realization of embedded passives in organic substrates.
> Workshop Goal:
> This workshop will provide a forum in which program
> results can be disseminated to a targeted group of industry
> representatives. Specifically, members of the project team
> and NCMS's program manager will offer workshop
> participants information and facilitated discussions on the
> following: goals and objectives, test vehicle design, mate-rial
> test results, reliability test results, electrical test results
> (decoupling and EMI), and modeling of the electrical
> performance of embedded distributed capacitance (EDC).
> Why attend:
> * Learn when, where, how to use these new EDC materials
> * Learn from PWB fabricators technical know-how and
> lessons learned
> * Learn recommended design guidelines
> * Receive workshop proceedings
> * Receive project final report at 60% savings
> Who should attend:
> Individuals responsible for:
> * PWB Fabrication
> * PWB Design
> * Electronic Products Designs
> High-Speed Digital Designers
> should NOT miss this workshop.
> Development and Use of
> Embedded Capacitance
> Materials in Printed Circuit Boards
> The Embedded Decoupling
> Capacitance Consortium
> Members
> StorageTek
> Delphi Delco
> Electronics Systems
> Raytheon Systems
> 3M Corporation
> E.I. DuPont de
> Nemours Co., Inc.
> Litton Advanced
> Circuitry
>

[SI-LIST] : Power Bus Structures - Presentation now available!!

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hello,

The slides from our November Meeting Power Bus Structires - Theory and
Design are now available. 
Please go to the RMCEMC Website at:
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc for 
the link.

NOTE: You may have to scroll down to see the actual link location when you
have gone to
the November Meeting web page.

Also included is information on the upcoming Embedded Capacitance Workshop
sponsored
by NCMS.

Thank you
Charles Grasso (Vice-Chair RMCEMCS)


 To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to majord...@silab.eng.sun.com. 
In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP.
si-list archives are accessible at  http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list

RE: EMC education courses

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

You best bet is to become active in your
local chapter of the  EMC Society. Maybe
even an officer...

-Original Message-
From: Bailey, Jeff [mailto:jbai...@sstech.on.ca]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 8:21 AM
To: 'emc-pstc'
Subject: EMC education courses



Greetings all,

I am looking into some further training to help me in my career in EMC and
would like your
input or help if you can offer any.  I don't want to waste time or money
taking any courses
that do not live up to their claims so I am hoping that some of you out
there have done some 
training and can offer me feedback as to how valuable the courses you took
really were.

I looking more into the technical type courses to help me troubleshoot and
offer re-design input
to bring non-compliant products into compliance, mainly in the area of
PWB's.

Please help!  :-)

One course I have found that looks pretty decent is the EMC Principles Video
Course plus the
40 lab session offered by the University of Missouri Rolla.  Can anyone
comment on this course
from experience?  (or any other course taken, good or bad I'd be interested
in your views)

Thank you all for you feedback!

Sincerely,

Jeff Bailey
EMC Technologist
SST - A Division of Woodhead Canada Ltd.
Phone: (519) 725 5136 ext. 363
Fax: (519) 725 1515
Email: jbai...@sstech.on.ca
Web: www.sstech.on.ca


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Cell Phone Hazards?

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hi Ghery - I seem to recall that NIST here in Boulder performed
some experiments that measured the field from a cell phone
at a typical usage distance at 700V/m!! 

-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 9:49 AM
To: 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards?



The maximum power that a hand held cell phone can use is 600 milliwatts.
Normally, the cell site drops them to a lower level, but 600 milliwatts is
the maximum.

Ghery Pettit
Intel


-Original Message-
From: mkel...@es.com [mailto:mkel...@es.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 7:42 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards?



Is 100 milliwatts a good typical figure to use, then for cell phones?  Just
on a knee-jerk basis, it seems a little low.

Anyway know the power output on cordless phones?

Thanks, Max

Max Kelson
Peripherals Engineer

Evans & Sutherland
600 Komas Drive, Salt Lake City, UT  84158
http://www.es.com/  
Telephone:  801-588-7196 / Fax:  801-588-4531
mailto:mkel...@es.com  


-Original Message-
From:   Patrick, Al [mailto:al.patr...@sciatl.com]
Sent:   Monday, December 06, 1999 9:55 AM
To: 'Gorodetsky, Vitaly'
Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards?


No, What I was saying was that as a microwave engineer, one
of my red flags
was the eyes.  The eyes are the most sensitive to microwave
radiation.  

Now, to apply my statement to cell phone use is not correct.
The typical
levels and frequencies of microwave radiation are much
greater than cell
phones.

I knew an engineer who worked with big dish antennas.  He
was responsible
designing and testing the antennas, so he was in strong
fields for years.
These antennas had 26 dB gain with a narrow beam, far
stronger that a cell
phone.  He worked over 20 years with this exposure on a
daily basic.  At age
43 he had cataracts, about 25 years sooner than general
population.  Now he
is fine today, retired a few years back.  

What I am saying is that at that level of exposure it took
over 20 years to
damage the most sensitive part to the body.  Were talking
about 5 watts of
power at 6000 MHz. which is far worst than a 100 mill-watts
at 800 MHz.  

In summary: I think a lot of "Bad Science" has been applied.
The levels and
frequencies are too low to cause the kinds of brain damage
being reported.

P.S.  I'm an old microware engineer of 51 who used to work
with 3.5 Kilowatt
microwave transmitters for years and I don't have cataracts.


Al Patrick  

 -Original Message-
From:   Gorodetsky, Vitaly [mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com] 
Sent:   Friday, December 03, 1999 8:28 PM
To: 'Patrick, Al'
Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards?

Al,
You've posted a very intriguing statement.  Why "the eyes go
first? (In the
past, I got watery eyes and a headache while doing immunity
tests).
"microwave engineers understand the risks" - than what the
fuss is all
about?  Or are you saying that since one has not got
cataract, he/she is
safe?

Regards
> -Original Message-
> From: Patrick, Al [SMTP:al.patr...@sciatl.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 2:30 PM
> To:   'Martin Green'; Patrick, Al; 'mkel...@es.com';
> emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
> 
>   Yes Martin, Lets just know it for what it is
"Bad Science".
> People like John Stallcel? (I hope I didn't misspell his
name too badly)
> with CBS has had several news shows on "Bad Science".  Now
there is one,
> in the press, that understands.  
> 
>   Those of us that were/are microwave
engineers understand the
> risks.  I have been exposed the microwave radiation many
times, but I know
> "the eyes go first.  If people that use cell phones were
getting
> cataracts, you bet I would pay attention. 
> 
>   I better quit talking before I get upset.
> 
>   Al Patrick
   

RE: Open Frame EMI Filters

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Go ahead and put it on the pwb. We do it anf
it works very well. There is a caveat though -
pay a lot of attention to the layout and final
installation.

-Original Message-
From: POWELL, DOUG [mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 10:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail); Treg Listserv (E-mail)
Subject: Open Frame EMI Filters



Hello group,
 
For years I have used off-the-shelf and custom EMI filters with a fully
enclosed metal canister.  Why is this enclosure required?  Are there
specific provisions in the standards?  My idea is to build up the filter
circuit on a printed circuit board and  make it an integral part of the
power supply.  
 
I am currently looking at EN133200 which has certain seal tests but after
reviewing these, they all appear to be related to climatic or environmental
conditions.  If the product passes these tests without the enclosure it
would seem that the product has passed, period.
 
Alternatively I have considered removing the nomenclature "EMI filter" and
simply call it an input module, then evaluate it as a part of the overall
system.  If it passes the EMC and Product Safety requirements, can I call
the job complete?
 
Any thoughts?
 
===
Douglas E. Powell
Regulatory Compliance Engineer
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
1625 Sharp Point Dr.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
m/s: 2018
---
970-407-6410 (phone)
970-407-5410 (e-fax)
800-446-9167 (toll-free)
mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com  
http://www.advanced-energy.com  
===

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Cell Phone Hazards?

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Just to provide a balance here:

My father is Professor of Pathology at Surrey University
in England. He has been involved in cancer research
for most of his professional life. 

I have grilled (metaphorically) him on this
issue.

To date, he belives that there is no conclusive evidence
of cell phones and damage to human tissues

-Original Message-
From: b...@anritsu.com [mailto:b...@anritsu.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 10:35 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? 



I think the most important point made by the article of "Is your cell phone 
killing you?" in Zdnn is this: 

"We found evidence of genetic damage in human blood," said George Carlo, 
WTR's chairman. "We have suggestions of excessive mortality from brain 
cancers among wireless phone users, and we have very clear evidence of a 
statistically significant higher risk of neuroepithelial tumors. ..." and 
"Many signs point to DNA damage as the likely culprit. Adey has found a link

between low-intensity microwaves and DNA damage in rat brain cells." 
 
It is not important, on the other hand, whether or what analogy exists 
between Microwave fields from cell phone and silicone breast implants, 
tobacco, and Low Frequency EM Fields from power lines. If we already have 
very reliable statistic data showing the hazard to cell phone users. Let's 
try to prevent the damage first before finding the real biological mechanism

behind the damage. 
 
Barry Ma  
-- 
From: , on 11/30/99 12:13 PM: 
 
The referenced article ponders why there might be a health effect if there
is 
little or no "heating" of human tissue. 
 
The present standards for safe levels of RFR for the Western world are 
predicated on the assumption that biological effects are only due to the 
heating effect.  There have been many published articles about cancers
caused 
by those who worked with or near high powered X-ray or radar equipment that 
can effect heating of body tissues.  In fact, RF generators have been used 
over patients arms or legs to intentionally apply heat therapy to the inner 
portions of these limbs. 
 
Oddly, only Russia focused on the possible biological effects of long term 
exposure to low level radiation.  As a result, they set limits that were two

orders of magnitude below those of the Western world. 
 
The truth is that no one knows what the health effects might be from long 
term exposure to low level radiation.  As some have pointed out, distance is

a critical element of exposure.  Cellphone antenna are often virtually 
touching the users skull.  Even with very low RF power out, they can produce

levels within the head that are far higher than that from radio and TV 
transmitters that are a mile or so away.  It is a recent phenomena for the 
"average" person to be exposed to long term low level radiation via the use 
of cheap personal transmitters.  Even laborers who have used two way radios 
for decades did not spend the same time with the antenna pressed to their 
face as the typical cellphone user. 
 
Only time and more studies will reveal the truth.  However, once all of the 
class action money has been rung out of the tobacco companies, do not be 
surprised if next BIG class action suits head in the direction of cellphone 
users. 
 
George Alspaugh 
-- 
On Tue, 30 November 1999, rbus...@es.com wrote: 
  
> The following article was presented this morning on ZDNET with regard to
the 
> safety of Cell phones. Thought some of you might be interested. 
>  
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2401220,00.html 
 
 


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

WARNING: TROJAN VIRUS

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Everyone..

Someone is sending a Trojan virus in an e-mail titled:

Embedded Capacitance: The Next step in PWB Design.

Please be careful  and delete the executable.


Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027
Tel: (303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM?

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Yeah - I remember now that now!!

My question to group is - Has anyone done this 
SUCCESSFULLY??
Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027
Tel: (303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


> --
> From:
> wolfgang_josenh...@3com.com[SMTP:wolfgang_josenh...@3com.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 1:49 PM
> To:   Grasso, Charles (Chaz)
> Cc:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; 'ron_cher...@densolabs.com'
> Subject:  RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM?
> 
> 
> 
> Charles,
> 
> Sorry, I guess I was in error with the Volumetric Site Attenuation inside
> a
> GTEM. It is not possible to get an antanna inside one.
> 
>  I believe that others have resonded with the correlation data the FCC has
> accepted.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Wolf Josenhans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)"  on 11/29/99
> 11:25:12 AM
> 
> Please respond to "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" 
> 
> Sent by:  "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" 
> 
> 
> To:   Wolfgang Josenhans/MW/US/3Com
> cc:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, "'RON_CHERNUS @densolabs.com'"
>   
> Subject:  RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is correct.
> BTW, how does one do the volumetric
> site attenuation in a GTEM?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wolfgang_josenh...@3com.com [mailto:wolfgang_josenh...@3com.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 8:26 AM
> To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz)
> Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; 'ron_cher...@densolabs.com'
> Subject: RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My recollection is that the FCC stated a GTEM could be utilized as an
> alternate
> test site of ANSI C63.4 if correlation to an Open Area Test site could be
> established.  This correlation must include volumetric site attenuation
> measurements and sample testing at a minimum.
> 
> You can contact Art Wall at the FCC  (aw...@fcc.gov) for more details.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Wolf Josenhans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)"  on 11/28/99
> 09:47:41 AM
> 
> Please respond to "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" 
> 
> Sent by:  "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" 
> 
> 
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, "'RON_CHERNUS @densolabs.com'"
>   
> cc:(Wolfgang Josenhans/MW/US/3Com)
> Subject:  RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't belive you can...
> Thank you
> Charles Grasso
> StorageTek
> 2270 Sth 88th Street
> Louisville CO 80027
> Tel: (303)673-2908
> Fax(303)661-7115
> 
> 
> > --
> > From:   ron_cher...@densolabs.com[SMTP:ron_cher...@densolabs.com]
> > Sent:   Wednesday, November 24, 1999 9:30 AM
> > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Subject: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM
> >
> >
> > I would like to know if I can take compliance data for FCC part 15 class
> B
> > in a GTEM??   Where is it allowed in writing
> > by the FCC?  I would also like to do FCC parts 22 and 24 on AMPS and PCS
> > phones. I believe that a NSA would be needed.
> > Has anyone reading this taken compliance RE data in a GTEM?
> > Any information would be appreciated.
> >
> > Ron Chernus, Associate Test Engineer, DVT
> > Denso International America
> > Carlsbad, California, USA
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> > quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> >
> >
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM?

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Yes that is correct.
BTW, how does one do the volumetric 
site attenuation in a GTEM?

-Original Message-
From: wolfgang_josenh...@3com.com [mailto:wolfgang_josenh...@3com.com]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 8:26 AM
To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz)
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; 'ron_cher...@densolabs.com'
Subject: RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM?




My recollection is that the FCC stated a GTEM could be utilized as an
alternate
test site of ANSI C63.4 if correlation to an Open Area Test site could be
established.  This correlation must include volumetric site attenuation
measurements and sample testing at a minimum.

You can contact Art Wall at the FCC  (aw...@fcc.gov) for more details.

Regards,

Wolf Josenhans




"Grasso, Charles (Chaz)"  on 11/28/99
09:47:41 AM

Please respond to "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" 

Sent by:  "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" 


To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, "'RON_CHERNUS @densolabs.com'"
  
cc:(Wolfgang Josenhans/MW/US/3Com)
Subject:  RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM?





I don't belive you can...
Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027
Tel: (303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


> --
> From:   ron_cher...@densolabs.com[SMTP:ron_cher...@densolabs.com]
> Sent:   Wednesday, November 24, 1999 9:30 AM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM
>
>
> I would like to know if I can take compliance data for FCC part 15 class B
> in a GTEM??   Where is it allowed in writing
> by the FCC?  I would also like to do FCC parts 22 and 24 on AMPS and PCS
> phones. I believe that a NSA would be needed.
> Has anyone reading this taken compliance RE data in a GTEM?
> Any information would be appreciated.
>
> Ron Chernus, Associate Test Engineer, DVT
> Denso International America
> Carlsbad, California, USA
>
>
>
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>
>

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).






-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM?

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

I don't belive you can...
Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027
Tel: (303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


> --
> From: ron_cher...@densolabs.com[SMTP:ron_cher...@densolabs.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 9:30 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  FCC part 15 class B, GTEM
> 
> 
> I would like to know if I can take compliance data for FCC part 15 class B
> in a GTEM??   Where is it allowed in writing
> by the FCC?  I would also like to do FCC parts 22 and 24 on AMPS and PCS
> phones. I believe that a NSA would be needed.
> Has anyone reading this taken compliance RE data in a GTEM?
> Any information would be appreciated.
> 
> Ron Chernus, Associate Test Engineer, DVT
> Denso International America
> Carlsbad, California, USA
> 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Article on UL

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Forgive a jaded old man but two things jumped out at me
when I read the article.

1.
"In many other countries, standards are set or approved by a
government entity 
  with industry involvement. U.S. safety standards, on the
other hand, are set 
  primarily by private industry - either in independent labs
such as UL or by 
  industry associations or organizations. The CPSC, an
independent regulatory 
  agency charged with protecting consumers from hazardous
products, imposes 
  federal regulations only when it believes industry's
voluntary efforts are 
  insufficient. "

Oh Boy. Lets see look like UL is ripe for a goverment takeover to me!!

2.
  Many experts interviewed contend that UL's recent problems
can be traced to 
  the way the company is organized and funded - with more
than nine-tenths of 
  its revenue coming from companies for testing products. UL
also sets industry 
  safety standards - which it then measures products against
- but does not 
  charge for that. 

Lets see - if we reorganize and - more importantly - change the funding (a
euphamism for taxation) then
we'll all be safer!!

Sorry - Just could not resist..


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: FCC part 15 class B, testing

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

This is really a no brainer... To summarize: 
The answer to your questions is NO for the following
reasons:

1. You are testing in an anechoic chamber
(Read also K.Javors analysis)
2. The antenna cannot be raised to its
full height requirement.

Thats the bad news. The good news is that the FCC
have accepted semi-anechoic chambers that meet the
ANSI C63.4 site attenuation criteria as sutiable
for compiance data. I suggest you contact them
for more advice.

The "Gold Standard" IMHO is still the OATS.

-Original Message-
From: ron_cher...@densolabs.com [mailto:ron_cher...@densolabs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 11:30 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: FCC part 15 class B, testing



I would like to know if I can take compliance data for FCC part 15 class B
in an anechoic chamber if I can't
vary the receive antenna from 1 to 4 metres?? (The chamber is not tall
enough) Or do I need an OATS or GTEM?
I would also like to do FCC parts 22 and 24 on AMPS and PCS phones. Any
information would be appreciated.





Ron Chernus, Associate Test Engineer, DVT
Denso International
Carlsbad, California, USA



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Is Your Head Clamp CE Marked?

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

I hesitate to even have my head examined..

I am afraid of what is (or is not) in there!!

-Original Message-
From: aimee.l.da...@us.ul.com [mailto:aimee.l.da...@us.ul.com]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 10:23 AM
To: Scott Douglas
Cc: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Is Your Head Clamp CE Marked?




And what would be the scope of the directive regulating this?  Would
certain brains be exempt based on qualifications listed in Annex I?
-Aimee


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Emission / Enclosure

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Ken, agreed

-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 12:49 PM
To: Westin, Amund; 'emc-pstc'
Subject: Re: Emission / Enclosure



My opinion: From 30 - 1000 MHz the material is not as important as the 
treatment of seams and apertures.

--
>From: "Westin, Amund" 
>To: "'emc-pstc'" 
>Subject: Emission / Enclosure
>Date: Thu, Nov 4, 1999, 6:18 AM
>

>
> Members,
>
> I looking for persons who have experience in use of aluminum vs.
> metallic plastic enclosure. The enclosure is typically 5cm X 10cm.
>
> Which configuration will reduce emission ? Has somebody compared  the
> configuration in practical tests ?
>
> Best regards
> Amund Westin
> Det Norske Veritas
> * amund.wes...@dnv.com
>
>
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Now available: Embedded Capacitance Presentation

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

To all interested parties:

The slides from the October RMCEMC meeting titled:
Embedded Capacitance: The next step in PWB Design is now
available from our website:

http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/

Comments will be appreciated.


 


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Dr Hubing Presentation on Power Bus Structures

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

The Rocky Mountain Chapter of the IEEE EMC Society is finishing
the old millenium with a bang!! We invite one and all to see..

Presenter: Dr. Todd Hubing from the University of Missouri,Rolla
Date : November 11th, 1999.
Times : 1:00pm - 4:30pm
Location: National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder
Co. (Directions) Room 1107
What you will see: The need for a good low impedance power distribution is
vital to the performance of todays high-speed computing. It need not be said
a great deal of lore is also involved especially in the area of decoupling.
Dr Hubing will present a 3 hour tutorial that will cover the theoretical
aspects of power bus impedances, performance data will be presented, and
finally some design guidelines.
Who is invited: All are welcome. There is no restriction on IEEE membership.
Naturally we encourage non-members to join the IEEE and the EMC Society to
help support events like these.
Cost: Free
If you intend to come: Please e-mail Charles Grasso at chasgra...@ieee.org.

Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027
Tel: (303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Wedge Picture

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hello,

Here is a picture of a wedge used for the 
Radiated Immunity testing one of our products.

It worked remarkably well.
 <> 


Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027
Tel: (303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

<>

[SI-LIST] : Comment on seminar

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

To all interested parties:

Sadly Lee Ritchey declined to discuss details of his
seminar in public.

Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027
Tel: (303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


 To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to majord...@silab.eng.sun.com. 
In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP.  
si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list 

RE: [SI-LIST] : Comments from your SI seminar (SendII)`

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Now hold on - in your answer you indicated a high frequency
signalling environment.

Remember - capacitance(& inductance) = delay = skew. Is this
what we are really looking for in a high frequency signalling
environment - Especially is skew is important?

OK if the timing diagram is NOT critical and the signal
is not "important" (eg reset) then maybe.

Don't you mean that the high frequency content of the 
edges may couple across?

-Original Message-
From: Denomme, Paul S. [mailto:paul.deno...@viasystems.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 1:01 PM
To: 'si-l...@silab.eng.sun.com'
Cc: 'EMC Group'
Subject: RE: [SI-LIST] : Comments from your SI seminar (SendII)`


In regards to comment 1.  In a high frequency signalling environment, The
return current will flow on the nearest plane whether it is power or ground.
If you have two planes coupled closely togther you create a capacitor which
the high frequency return current uses to traverse the planes and takes the
path of least impedance.
If there were not two planes coupled together, it would be an EMI
catastrophe and you would not know where the return current is flowing.  

Regarding comment 2, he was stating that grounding in multiple locations is
a bad idea.  This can create some ground loops within the chassis. There
will be some type of potential difference from one chassis connection point
to another and this will create some current in the chassis.  This is very
bad from an EMI perspective.
He believes one Solid connection to the ground plane is sufficient. 

I would like to hear a take from an EMI person.

Regards,

Paul S. Denomme
Viasystems Inc.
Richmond, VA
paul.deno...@viasystems.com


> -Original Message-
> From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) [SMTP:gra...@louisville.stortek.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 2:26 PM
> To:   'leeritc...@earthlink.net'
> Cc:   'EMC Group'; 'Signal Integrity'
> Subject:  [SI-LIST] : Comments from your SI seminar (SendII)`
> 
> Sir,
> 
> A collegue of mine has recently taken your SI seminar.
> In discussing the class with him I came across two
> statements from the semiar that I would like to discuss
> with you and others in the EMC profession.
> 
> Comment 1. On page 109 there is a slide that states:
> 
> Traces crossing cuts in planes can function properly.
> 
> Please explain your rationale.
> 
> Comment 2: On page 110 there is a slide title:
> 
> A bad grounding idea.
> 
> The picture is of a board with multiple ground connections
> and distances maked off as lambda/20
> 
> Clearly this is a shot at the multiple stitching concept that
> is prevalent in the EMC world.
> 
> One of the problems in the EMC/SI world is that there is 
> contradictory information provided to the poor consumer.
> 
> I look forward to a lively debate on these issues. 
> 
> 
>  To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to
> majord...@silab.eng.sun.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE
> si-list, for more help, put HELP.  si-list archives are accessible at
> http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list 

 To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to
majord...@silab.eng.sun.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE
si-list, for more help, put HELP.  si-list archives are accessible at
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

[SI-LIST] : Comments from your SI seminar (SendII)`

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Sir,

A collegue of mine has recently taken your SI seminar.
In discussing the class with him I came across two
statements from the semiar that I would like to discuss
with you and others in the EMC profession.

Comment 1. On page 109 there is a slide that states:

Traces crossing cuts in planes can function properly.

Please explain your rationale.

Comment 2: On page 110 there is a slide title:

A bad grounding idea.

The picture is of a board with multiple ground connections
and distances maked off as lambda/20

Clearly this is a shot at the multiple stitching concept that
is prevalent in the EMC world.

One of the problems in the EMC/SI world is that there is 
contradictory information provided to the poor consumer.

I look forward to a lively debate on these issues. 


 To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to majord...@silab.eng.sun.com. 
In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP.  
si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list 

[SI-LIST] : Comments from your SI seminar

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Sir,

A collegue of mine has recently taken your SI class.
In discussing the class with him I came across two
statements from the class that I would like to discuss
with you and others in the EMC profession.

Comment 1. On page 109 there is a slide that states:

Traces crossing cuts in planes can function properly.

Please explain your rationale.

Comment 2: On page 110 there is a slide title:

A bad grounding idea.

The picture is of a board with multiple ground connections
and distances maked off as lambda/20

Clearly this is a shot at the multiple stitching concept that
is prevalent in the EMC world.

One of the problems in the EMC/SI world is that there is 
contradictory information provided to the poor consumer.

I look forward to a lively debate on these issues. 

 To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to majord...@silab.eng.sun.com. 
In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP.  
si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list 

Presentation Availability for Embedded Capacitance

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

To all interested parties:

For all those seeking a copy of the presentation - Good News!!

There will be a presentation available in pdf format about 1 week after
the meeting.

I will send the link out when the download is available.


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Embedded Capacitance - The Nest Step in PWB Design

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

To all interested parties:

The Rocky Mountain Chapter of the EMC Society is proud to announce
its next meeting:

Embedded Capacitance - The Next Step in PWB Design.
When: October 14th

For more information please go to our website at:
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc
Charles Grasso
Advisory Engineer
StorageTek
One StorageTek Drive
Louisville CO 80028
303-673-2908 (P)
 


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

80/80 rule explanation offerred

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Group,

Here is a reply from Monrad Monsen
For those that went to the 98 Denver EMC Conference
Monrad presented a Measurement Uncertainty Workshop.
He is also a Certified Quality Engineer and teaches a 
stats course. Please direct any furthur questions directly to him.
 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Posted for Monrad Monsen
Mr. Selva,
You have asked an interesting question.  I am not aware of too many
companies that have time (and money) to perform testing required for the
80/80 calculations.  Therefore, I can only answer your question from an
academic perspective as opposed to industry trends.

> How do you perform this calculation ?
Assuming you are measuring the same worst-case maximized frequency, you may
do the 80/80 calculations based on the margin from the limit with the same
statistical accuracy as if you had used the measured emission levels.  The
arithmetic mean (average) of the margin is calculated with the normal method
giving a passing negative average margin from the limit, and the standard
deviation is also calculated using the same formula as listed in the
standard.  Then the compliance is judged from the following relationship
gained from the standard:
   (x-bar) + (k)(s) <= 0
   (x-bar) + ks * 0

Where "x-bar" is the arithmetic mean (average) which should be negative, "s"
is the standard deviation, "k" is from the table in CISPR 22, and "L" is 0
since you are calculating the statistics for margins where negative margin
meets the standard.  Of course, if the arithmetic mean (average) is actually
over the limit (i.e. positive margin), then there is no need for any further
calculation since it fails.  

In fact, I would contend that performing this 80/80 calculation using the
margins actually makes the calculation more meaningful to the customer since
he really wants to know by how much does his product pass or how much
comfort should he have regarding emissions for his product.

> On which value do you perform it (margin, level, azimuth, height of
antenna, ...) ?
The 80/80 calculation can only be calculated on the measured result (either
a measured level or a margin) as compared to a standard.  If you calculate
the 80/80 using margins, then the standard is L=0 (i.e. the standard is the
same as a zero margin).  To take a measurement, you must maximize the
emission using the same procedure for each sample including maximizing
azimuth, the height of the antenna, and the cable layout.  It is meaningless
to do statistics on the azimuth or height of antenna since these are merely
a part of the measurement process, and there is no agency standard regarding
these values.

I hope this helps.

Monrad L. Monsen
Senior EMC Engineer
Product Compliance 
303.673.2438 phone
303.673.2431 fax
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL

> -Original Message-
> From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) 
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 6:23 PM
> To:   SAFETY-EMC (Adresse de messagerie); 'Pierre Selva'
> Cc:   Monsen, Monrad L
> Subject:  RE: 80/80 calculation rules for CISPR22/EN55022
> 
> Hello,
> I have taken the liberty of forwarding this to
> Mr Monsen of StorageTek. He presented a 
> Measurement Uncertainty course at the Denver 
> 1998 EMC Symposium & is a stats instructor.
> 
> Thank you
> Charles Grasso
> StorageTek
> 2270 Sth 88th Street
> Louisville CO 80027
> Tel: (303)673-2908
> Fax(303)661-7115
> 
> 
>   --
>   From:   Pierre Selva[SMTP:actionsmesu...@compuserve.com]
>   Sent:   Thursday, August 26, 1999 8:12 AM
>   To: SAFETY-EMC (Adresse de messagerie)
>   Subject:80/80 calculation rules for CISPR22/EN55022
> 
> 
>   Dear colleagues,
> 
>   My subject of interest is the statistical rule explain in chapter
> 9.2 of EN55022 (also called the 80/80). Reading the standard, I don't know
> on which value I have to apply the rule.
>   In fact, I usually apply the rule on each suspect frequency (about 5
> by product) and I compare the calculated LEVEL to the Limit, in dBµV.
> 
>   One of my customer is asking me to make this calculation on the
> MARGIN. For each product, I have to  take the worst margin, and I make the
> calculation for the x products I have. The calcul gives a result which has
> to be compare to 0 (zero). The resulting margin has to be less than 0.
> 
>   How do you perform this calculation ?
>   On which value do you perform it (margin, level, azimuth, height of
> antenna, ...) ?
>   What are your own experience with your products or your customer ?
> 
>   In advance, I thank you a lot fo

Tran Tasman Agreement

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hello..

Does anyone know if the Tran Tasman agreement was actually
signed and went into effect on Jan 1 1999? Information
on the web indicates otherwise..
Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027
Tel: (303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: CE Marking requirements

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

As far as I know, the EU has not adopted the insane FCC Class B compliance
process. So there is NO procedure for marking a motherboard as a "compliant"
unit. 

What you can do is test it in a system (just like the old days) and mark the
motherboard based on that test ALONE.

If I understand your requirement, you are looking to adopt the infamous
CE+CE=CE
approach. Again, this has proven NOT to work especially for emissions.

Comments:

(a) there is no requirement to test "open chassis" and that we can CE mark
the
board as compliant as long as we have shown that it can meet the class B
levels
within a chassis of our choosing.

RESPONSE: There is no requirement NOR is there a process for "open chassis"
testing.
The EMC Directive (nor the guidelines) can help you here.


(b) we are still required to perform "open chassis" tests, however, there is
no
6dB margin and the board will have to meet the EN 50022 class B levels with
the
cover off.
RESPONSE: Nonsense. There is NO "open chassis" test.

WARNING: Be careful. The next thing the testhouse will try is the TCF route.

Ugh.


Thank you
Charles Grasso
Advisory Engineer
StorageTek
1 StorageTek Drive
Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247.
Tel:303-673-2908
Fax:303-661-7115
email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com
RMCEMC Web Site:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/




-Original Message-
From: michael.garret...@radisys.com
[mailto:michael.garret...@radisys.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 2:44 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: CE Marking requirements



Well group, if you care to help out another American confused by the
specific
requirements for Europe, I would appreciate it.  I seem to be getting
varying
stories from different test houses as to what is required for one of our
products.  These are big enough players that pitting one against another is
not
something I want to undertake at this point.

We currently manufacture a motherboard which is sold both by itself and with
a
chassis which includes power supply, hard drive and floppy.  We are
currently
going through our internal EMC validation to ensure that we meet both FCC
Class
B and EN 55022 Class B levels.  Our experience on previous products has been
if
we clear emissions, we haven't had problems in other areas, but we'll be
testing
to EN 55024 of immunity, as well.

The issue arises when we discuss testing of the system versus testing of the
motherboard alone.  Within the US, the FCC regulations permit an additional
6dB
margin for "open chassis" measurement, so long as those frequencies fall
back
within the class B levels with the cover on.  This does not appear to be a
problem for our product.

We have been told by different parties that for Europe,

(a) there is no requirement to test "open chassis" and that we can CE mark
the
board as compliant as long as we have shown that it can meet the class B
levels
within a chassis of our choosing

and

(b) we are still required to perform "open chassis" tests, however, there is
no
6dB margin and the board will have to meet the EN 50022 class B levels with
the
cover off.

We're having a little more difficulty making things work using the (b)
approach.
I am specifically concerned about staying far enough below the levels that
we're
not going to potentially pass today and fail 6 months from now due to a
slight
drift in tolerances of components, test equipment or test engineers'
dispositions.

I have the texts of the EMC directive, as well as the test requirements
specified in the above documents and I'm happy to wade through them if you
can
point me in the right direction.  I will be heading that direction in the
next
day or two if I don't receive a response.  I'm hoping, however, that someone
in
the group can shave a few hours of exceptionally captivating reading from my
life by pointing me in the right direction.

Regards,

Michael Garretson
Compliance Engineer
RadiSys Corporation



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Question on top 6 frequencies

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hello...

I need a rumor confirmed or quashed. I have heard that
at a recent USCEL meeting in Seattle, the existing 
procedure of  reporting only the top 6 freqs is
no longer considered acceptable.

Can any one confirm this?

Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027
Tel: (303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

ESD or EN50082-1:1997 & EN55024

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Comments

1. The first person to publish data on the subnanosecond
performance of the ESD event was W.M.King back in the
80s. The data is published in the IEEE.( Dr. Pommerenke..I can send you 
slides of the data if you wish)

2. There is a distinct difference in the rise time  between a 
discharge from a finger[slow] and a discharge from  metal intervening
object (such as a key)[fast <1nS].

3. There is a difference in the risetime due to approach speed
and voltage..
Sooo

4. The Contact Discharge was invented to taked care of the 
variences and provide a consistent rise time irresspective
of voltage and approach speed. 
So one could test at a higher voltage for contact and pass at the lower.
Note the probe is sharp..simulating the metal intervening object. Indeed
as I recall Keytek had to add a ferrite to moderate the risetime. This is
NOT a conductive test. There is a very intense field between the probe
and the tip due to the very small capacitance. 

5. The Air Discharge probe is rounded - simulating a finger and
as we all know, is intended for non-conductive surfaces. The AD
has all the variabilities of ESD at a high DC level. There is no
radiative coupling per se (which would require an AC field), rather an
 induced field of the opposite polarity on the other side of the
nonconductive medium. 
If this is high enough a breakdown will occur. 


Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027
Tel: (303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


> --
> From: Leslie Bai[SMTP:leslie_...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 1999 12:28 PM
> To:   Mike Hopkins; 'b...@anritsu.com'; 'IEEE'
> Subject:  RE: re: EN50082-1:1997 & EN55024
> 
> 
> Years ago, Diethard Moehr (Secretary of IEC TC77)
> invited me to join IEC TC77 representing 
> Singapore but due to some personal reason,
> the invitation was declined (like I said in Seattle
> when I met him, I still feel sorry for that.)
> 
> After reading Mike's email, I can't stop myself
> adding a few more words to my previous
> reply to Arun Kaore regarding ESD. Many 
> people think ESD is conductive coupling
> and thus only take into account of Voltage 
> applied. For contact discharge, it may be 
> alright since in this case conductive coupling
> is dominate. But for air-discharge, it is not
> true. The ESD effects mainly result from 
> radiative coupling (some conductive as well
> but not dominate). The test level is in Voltage
> but actual effects result from dV/dt. In other
> words, how many kVs is not so important
> but dV/dt becomes the killer.
> 
> Different dV/dt result in different field distributions
> and different current indensities when picked up
> by different portions of the EUT which is actually
> exposed to an electromagnetic field. 
> 
> If you don't look at it in this way, I guess
> you may not be able to answer the question
> logically.
> 
> Regards,
> Leslie
> 
> 
> --- Mike  Hopkins  wrote:
> > 
> > I'm not sure I'm the most appropriate person to
> > answer, but here's my
> > opinion. Doug Smith at Auspex (also a member of this
> > ieee group) is probably
> > the best qualified to talk about ESD and other noise
> > phenomena:
> > 
> > Back in the mid '80's when we were demonstrating ESD
> > simulators (air
> > discharge only), we saw a lot of cases where EUT's
> > survived higer voltages
> > -- 8 to 10kV, but failed when tested at a few kV.
> > With the scopes at the
> > time, we could see faster rise times at the lower
> > voltages (about 2-5kV),
> > slower risetimes at intermediate voltages (5-10kV)
> > and faster risetimes
> > again at the higher voltages (>10kV). We attributed
> > these low voltage
> > failures to the faster risetimes with air discharges
> > below about 5kV. I I
> > think this scenereo is still valid, and we see
> > risetimes of a few hundred
> > pico seconds below about 3kV. Risetimes do get to be
> > slower at higher
> > voltages. David Pommerenke at HP has done a lot of
> > recent work to
> > characterize human ESD with modern scopes and high
> > bandwidth
> > instrumentation.
> > 
> > With contact mode testing, I'm not sure the same
> > argument applies. With a
> > simulator that has very clean risetimes, the
> > risetime is held constant (IEC
> > is .7 to 1ns) with voltage. di/dt in fact increases
> > with voltage, which
> > would be evidence for more failures at higher
> > voltages, but this doesn't
> > seem to be the case in practice. Nevertheless,
> > people keep coming up with
> > cases where lower voltages cause failures where
> > higher voltages are okay.
> > 
> > Some possibilities for the problem with contact
> > mode:
> > 1. Some simulator have a considerable amount of
> > ringing on the rising edge
> > of the current waveform -- ESD Association work
> > under WG14 -- also papers
> > published at past ESD Symposiums by HP and others.
> > This ringing could be
> > inconsistant with voltage and be a significant
> > contributor to failures.
> > 
> > 2. Breakdown

Internal ESD testing & EN55024

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

First I would like to thank the group.As usual the open sharing
of ideas provides a lot of insight to me. 

I have one question though - I am particularly interested in
the requirements for EN55024. 

Has anyone changes their ESD procedures as a result of the
internal ESD requirement of the spec?

Thank you
Charles Grasso
Advisory Engineer
StorageTek
1 StorageTek Drive
Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247.
Tel:303-673-2908
Fax:303-661-7115
email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com
RMCEMC Web Site:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Question on internal ESD testing

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hello,

Does anyone in this august group apply ESD discharges INTERNAL
to a product as required by EN55024. 

I consider this just a tad egregious - don't you?

Thank you
Charles Grasso
Advisory Engineer
StorageTek
2270Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247.
Tel:303-673-2908
Fax:303-661-7115
email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Web Site:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: NSA

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

In my experience it is very unusual to have large NSA 
variations from the ideal in horizontal orientation.

SUGGESSTION: It would appear that you have a large 
ground screen. I would suggest you perform a site cal
at 3m in another area of the ground screen that does not
contain the turntable. If the site cal is STILL out then
you must suspect the test gear/set up.

Another problem might be that the Xmt/Rcv
cables have deteriorated and are out of spec.

QUESTIONS:
It would help to know what frequencies the NSA was problematical?
Are the errant frequencies the same for both horizontal and vertical?

It would also be helpful to know if you have a building surrounding
the test area?




Thank you
Charles Grasso
Advisory Engineer
StorageTek
2270Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247.
Tel:303-673-2908
Fax:303-661-7115
email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Web Site:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/




-Original Message-
From: WOODS, RICHARD [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 6:46 AM
To: 'emc-pstc'
Subject: RE: NSA



Here is our present status. We added ground screen across the table and
soldered it down. We now pass 3m horizontal by a fraction of a dB, but
vertical is out over a dB. When we moved the receive antenna out to 10m we
passed vertical! We are using tuned dipoles and have shown that they are
balanced by rotating them 180 degrees. They were recently calibrated by the
same lab we used last year. The sum of the antenna factors drifted by only
about 0.5 dB, but our NSA has moved lower by several dB. So it appears that
we can rule out antenna calibration and balance. Oh, and yes we have
ferrites on the transmit cable and we have 10 dB pads at the antennas.  The
surface of our turntable is about 2 cm above the surface of the pad. Our
brushes are mounted on the side of the table and brush against the top
surface of the ring. I have noticed some rippling in our ground screen.
Could these surface variations be a problem? As I indicated before, the site
passed its tests over the last four years. Any other suggestions.

--
From:  WOODS, RICHARD
Sent:  Friday, July 16, 1999 5:20 PM
To:  'emc-pstc'
Subject:  RE: NSA

We have a 10m site, but because of high ambients, we calibrate and
test at 3m. So, we have a very large ground screen for a 3m site. When we
place the transmitter on the table, we fail NSA. When we move the
transmitter onto the ground screen we pass. We can place the transmitter to
the side of the table on in front of the table as pass. Therefore, I
conclude that we are not experiencing reflections from objects near the
OATS, nor do we have problems with the screen or its connection to earth.
The antenna and cable setup also appears to be correct since we can pass off
the table. It appears that our 1.5m table is the only unknown. We did find
that the continuity between the ring and the screen (a bolted pressure
connection) had deteriorated significantly. That is why we added the copper
straps as a more permanent connection method. There are eight short, wide
copper straps around the 1.5m table.
--
From:  b...@anritsu.com [SMTP:b...@anritsu.com]
Sent:  Friday, July 16, 1999 4:00 PM
To:  WOODS,RICHARD; "INTERNET[
]"@anritsu.com
Subject:  re: NSA

Richard,
Can you detail your procedure to the conclution: "The
problem appears to be 
the turn table" ?
Barry
-
Original Text
From: "WOODS, RICHARD" , on 7/16/99
12:28 PM:
Argh! For the first time in five years, our NSA is out of
spec on our 3
meter OATS at 30 MHz. The problem appears to be the turn
table. We can move
the equipment off of the table to one side or toward the
front and comply,
so it does not appear to be an off site reflection problem.
We have 
replaced
marginal brushes from the table to the ring and we have
added wide copper
ground strips from the ring (attached with screws) to the
ground screen
(soldered). Still won't pass. Suggestions?

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


D

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For

Russian Scientist seeking US Research partner

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Greetings all.

Dr Marina Koledintseva is a scientist based in Russia with
a need for a US Research Partner. If you have an interest
or know of anyone else who is interested please let me know. 


Her resume follows:




Marina Y. Koledintseva, Ph.D.
Home address in Russia:  Yaroslavskaya St., 17-9, Moscow , Russia 129366
Tel (home): +7-095-286-43-18; tel (office): +7-095-362-79-58; fax (office):
+7-095-362-89-38
E-mail: ko...@orc.ru

Objective
Employment in R&D Radio Frequency and Microwave Engineering, post-doc
position; teaching.  

Education
December 1990- December 1996
Moscow Power Engineering Institute (Technical University) - Faculty of
Radioengineering, Moscow, Russia
Ph.D. course of studying. Ph.D. degree in Theoretical Bases of
Radioengineering. Research, modeling and design of frequency-selective
ferrite devices for microwave and mm-wave signals parameters measurement.
Title of Ph.D. dissertation: "Frequency-selective power conversion in
mm-waveband by means of hexagonal ferrite resonators".
 September 1978-March 1984
Moscow Power Engineering Institute (Technical University) - Faculty of
Radioengineering, Moscow, Russia
M. Sc. degree with honors in Radiophysics and Electronics.  Research and
modeling in the field of ferrite microwave engineering, signal and noise
processing by ferrite non-linear resonance elements. Title of M.Sc. diploma
thesis: "Conversion of additive sum 'signal plus noise' by ferrite
cross-multiplier". 
  
 Summary of Positions Held and Experience
  September 1996 up till now
Moscow Power Engineering Institute (Technical University) - Laboratory of
Gyromagnetic Electronics and Electrodynamics (Ferrite Lab), Moscow, Russia
Senior Researcher. Research, modeling and design in ferrite microwave and
mm-wave engineering, related problems of EMC/EMI, frequency-selective
methods of detection and measurement of microwave and mm-wave irradiation
parameters, spectrum analysis, microwave filters and absorbers.
  September 1997 -January 1999 
Moscow Power Engineering Institute (Technical University) -Chair of
Technical English - Associate Professor
  September 1995 - September 1996 
Moscow Power Engineering Institute (Technical University) - Patent
Department, Moscow, Russia
Leading Engineer of the Patent Department- expert of inventions in
Electrical, Radio  and  Electronic Engineering 
  October  1983-September 1995
Moscow Power Engineering Institute (Technical University) - Laboratory of
Gyromagnetic Electronics and Electrodynamics (Ferrite Lab), Moscow, Russia
Research Engineer. Research, modeling and design in the field of microwave
ferrite devices, frequency-selective methods of detection and measurement of
microwave and mm-wave irradiation parameters, spectrum analysis.
At the same time took part in educational process: course on Electrodynamics
for 2-nd year students, Theory of Radioengineering Signals and Circuits;
Physics of Ferrites (special course for graduate students), supervising a
number of students M.Sc. diploma works. 
   
Professional Achievements
R&D: methods of frequency-selective power conversion in mm-waveband using
hexagonal ferrite resonator for panorama spectrum measuring devices,
algorithms and computation of their characteristics; methods of analysis of
stable non-linear phenomena in ferrite resonators at their interaction with
electromagnetic field, theoretical and experimental research of
characteristics and application of composite gyromagnetic absorbing
materials for filtering of unwanted ocsillations.
Design: samples of frequency-selective ferrite power and frequency
converters, filters, absorbing coatings; computer programs for computation
of their characteristics.
Took part in 14 industrial projects, the most considerable are the
following:
1.  Investigation of frequency-selective conversion of electromagnetic
signals parameters by gyromagnetic media for ecological purity of microwave
active devices (1994).
2.  Methods and means of spurious irradiation suppression of aircraft
radioelectronic equipment (1996-1997).
3.  Reduction of unwanted radiation produced by microwave ovens by means of
frequency-selective absorbers (1998).
Teaching: courses on Electrodynamics for 2-nd year students, Theory of
Radioengineering Signals and Circuits; Physics of Ferrites (special course
for graduate students), supervising  a number of students M.Sc. diploma
works; Technical English.

  Professional Membership
Member of IEEE (EMC, MTT) since June 1996
Member of working group of the International Bureau on Gyromagnetic
Electronics and Electrodynamics (translator of Proceedings) and interpreter
at a number of Conferences (ICMF'92- Crimea, annual ICCSE'94-98 - Moscow).

   Patents and Publications
53 scientific papers, including 7 inventions, protecte

RE: CISPR 22 equal to EN55022?

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

IMHO,

As I understand it the latest Amendments of CISPR22 are not necessarily
in EN55022. Indeed they may be modified or rejected by the EU and so
they may NOT be the same.
Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027
Tel: (303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


> --
> From: Richard Cass[SMTP:richard_c...@irisinc.scitex.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 1:59 PM
> To:   'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
> Subject:  RE: CISPR 22 equal to EN55022?
> 
> 
> Surprisingly, I never got an answer on this.  Perhaps many of thought that
> it was so simple that someone was bound to answer.
> For the exorbitant cost of this service you would think that I would get
> better service than this. 
> ;-)
> Rich C.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Cass [mailto:richard_c...@irisinc.scitex.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 3:55 PM
> To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
> Subject: CISPR 22 equal to EN55022?
> 
> 
> 
> Neophyte question of the week.
> If a supplier of a product claims compliance to CISPR 22, is this exactly
> equivalent to EN55022 (assuming you have met all the latest amendments)
> for
> the purposes of CE marking?
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Re:EMC Experiments

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

You might contact the Education Committee at the
IEEE. They are committed to the Education on EMC and
have put on may successful experiment demos at EMC
Conferences. (As the Workshop/Tutorial & Experiments
Chair for Denver 1998 I can personally attest to
thet quality of the expeiments and demo). The
IEEE Website has all the info you need.

Thank you
Charles Grasso
Advisory Engineer
StorageTek
2270Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247.
Tel:303-673-2908
Fax:303-661-7115
email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Web Site:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/




-Original Message-
From: jim_bac...@monarch.com [mailto:jim_bac...@monarch.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 8:07 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Fwd:Re:EMC Experiments




posting for a non list member.  Please inculde him on your replies..  Jim

Reply Separator
Subject:EMC Experiments
Author: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   7/5/99 10:39 AM

Dear Listmembers,

I'm beggining to develop/create some experiments of Electromagnetic
Compatibility for electrical engineering graduation students.

Anyone has any information to share with me? Any experiment that can be
done in a relatively well-equiped lab will be welcome...

Thanks in advance for your help

Muriel

-- 
==
Muriel Bittencourt de Liz
GRUCAD - Grupo de Conceptao e Anßlise de Dispositivos EletromagnTticos
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
Caixa Postal - 476 88040-900 - Florianopolis - SC - BRASIL
Fone: +55.48.331.9649 - Fax: +55.48.234.3790
e-mail: mur...@grucad.ufsc.br


Received: from ruebert.ieee.org ([199.172.136.3]) by mail.monarch.com with
SMTP
  (IMA Internet Exchange 3.11) id 0003BB94; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:13:50 -0400
Received:  by ruebert.ieee.org (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8)
id PAA26135
Received: from gemini.ieee.org  by ruebert.ieee.org (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with
ESMTP
id PAA26117; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:17:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.monarch.com (mail.monarch.com [208.159.116.20])
by gemini.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28433
for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:14:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ccMail by mail.monarch.com
  (IMA Internet Exchange 3.11) id 0003B95B; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:12:03 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:49:16 -0400
Message-ID: <0003b95b.c22...@mail.monarch.com>
From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com (Jim Bacher)
Subject: Re:EMC Experiments
To: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz ,
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ruebert.ieee.org id
PAA26119
X-Resent-To: emc-pstc-ad...@ieee.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ruebert.ieee.org id
PAA26135


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: NEAR/ FAR FIELD CORRELATION ISSUES

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Ken,

Schedule is ALWAYS an issue for any testing be
it EMC or temperature. I have found that when
companies work the issue into their schedules
EMC is of minimal impact.

If we allow volume to dictate practices that are patently
wrong, then I belive we make the EMC testing pointless.
Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027
Tel: (303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


> --
> From: Javor, Ken[SMTP:ken.ja...@hsv.sverdrup.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 8:55 AM
> To:   'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: NEAR/ FAR FIELD CORRELATION ISSUES
> 
> 
> I think the issue is schedule impact, not direct cost of the test.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   lfresea...@aol.com [SMTP:lfresea...@aol.com]
> > Sent:   Friday, June 18, 1999 6:42 PM
> > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Subject:Re: NEAR/ FAR FIELD CORRELATION ISSUES
> > 
> > 
> > Ed, please send this out only if you think it's appropriate.
> > 
> > Hi folks,
> > 
> > I don't want to run the risk of offending list members, but what's the
> > 
> > problem over test costs?
> > 
> > I charge little more than the chap that repairs my car, or the guy
> > that fixes 
> > my A/C.
> > 
> > EMC is a part of life, live with it. I speculate that most folks will
> > get 
> > help early, and life will be OK.  Some folks may not pay up front and
> > suffer 
> > later: this is not a new lesson.
> > 
> > Rather than try to change test methods that work fine, even if they
> > could be 
> > a little better, take a close look at where your facility money
> > goes. 
> > then charge what should be charged, not what you can get away with! 
> > 
> > If anyone wants to criticize me, e-mail direct. Or call, 815 637 3729.
> > 
> > My humble opinion,
> > 
> > Derek Walton
> > 
> > -
> > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> > quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> > 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: NEAR/ FAR FIELD CORRELATION ISSUES

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Actually Earl - I am in complete agreement with you. I think you
may have misunderstood my comments. Let me explain:

1. On the CE+CE maybe = CE comment. No question here. I agree.
Many systems fail emissions (maybe immunity) testing due to 
incompatible combinations. BUT... As I am sure you know, the 
FCC has a Class B compliance system that allows for exactly that. 
PCs can be 
assembled from sutiably marked components (such as video cards)
and marketed WITHOUT furthur testing. This results in non-compliant 
units (admitted by the FCC) released on the market place with
NO intent by the FCC to enforce the rules.

(BTW - The Australians have released an equivalent scheme
with the  proviso that a metal enclosure be used)

2. Here is the crux of my issue with the FCC. The logic and the
physics don't match. To illustrate: A recent thread has described
the origin of the emissions standards and generally everyone 
agrees what a jolly good thing it is too.  That being the case,
how could the the FCC put into law a process that allows for
systems to be released on the market place WITHOUT testing. 
To me the existing FCC Class B procedures render the emissions 
standard irrelevant. After all why should any manufacturer concern
themselves with the standard when the FCC blatenly ignore it
themselves?

3. If you have monitored this list recently, you should
have seen my comments regarding the emissions limits.
To reiterate: Raise the limits 20db but make EVERYONE
test. Although this may seem ridiculous - compared to the
FCC Class B process it makes a lot of sense. This process
maintains the INTENT of the emissions spec in the first place
- that is to maintain a KNOWN level of interference.

OK -OK so folks will bleat about cycle time etc...
So an alternate solution is to truely engineer the EMC at the
component level. Design tests/procedures to adequately test
at the componet level AND (this is key) have the regulatory
agencies redesign the emissions limits to meet the 21st Century.

Call me if you want to chat furthur.

-Original Message-
From: Morse, Earl [mailto:earl.mo...@compaq.com]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 3:36 PM
To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz); 'Lou Gnecco'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: NEAR/ FAR FIELD CORRELATION ISSUES


I beg to differ.

It is ludicrous to believe that components or for that matter subassemblies
can be certified and then combined to make a compliant system.

CE + CE doesn't always equal CE

The reduction of emissions is highly  reliant on component placement.  The
same parts can be arranged on circuit boards in compliant and non-compliant
patterns.  Same with subassemblies.

While the current measurement techniques are difficult they are about as
close to the "truth" as we can get.  Even if that means an 8 dB swing from
site to site.

The reason that we see PCs consistently fail by as much as 20 dB is because
of a lack of enforcement.  Many computer manufacturers sneak through the
requirements with their one of a kind golden units never to worry about
compliance again.  Very few get caught and it is worth the bucks to keep the
production lines going rather than shutdown the lines.

Who was the last computer manufacturer you heard of that was forced to
shutdown until an EMC problem was fixed?  I have a book of test reports on
competitor's products.  They fall into the categories of compliant, near
compliant (looks like they tried), and fails miserably (didn't try, didn't
care, and outright lied on any self declarations).  The failing companies
seem to be doing just as brisk a business as the passing companies without
having to worry about the cost of EMC.


Earl Morse
Portable Division EMC Design
Compaq Computer Corporation
Phone:  281.927.3607
Pager:  713.717.0824
Fax:  281.927.3654
Email:  earl.mo...@compaq.com <mailto:earl.mo...@compaq.com> 


-Original Message-
From:   Grasso, Charles (Chaz)
[mailto:gra...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent:   Friday, June 18, 1999 10:33 AM
To: 'Lou Gnecco'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:RE: NEAR/ FAR FIELD CORRELATION ISSUES


I cannot agree more!! We, not the government, need to
drive the technology for EMC.

I have followed this thread with interest. I have long
believed
that if EMC was to maintain credibility we (EMC ) would have
to
come up with a method of demonstrating compliance in spite
of the
many and varied combinations. One way is to test at the
component
level - like our Safety brethren - and call the assembly of
tested
components good!!

This is methodology can be made consistent with good
engineering 
design practice unlike the existing FCC rules for Class B
equipment.
On the 

RE: NEAR/ FAR FIELD CORRELATION ISSUES

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

I cannot agree more!! We, not the government, need to
drive the technology for EMC.

I have followed this thread with interest. I have long believed
that if EMC was to maintain credibility we (EMC ) would have to
come up with a method of demonstrating compliance in spite of the
many and varied combinations. One way is to test at the component
level - like our Safety brethren - and call the assembly of tested
components good!!

This is methodology can be made consistent with good engineering 
design practice unlike the existing FCC rules for Class B equipment.
On the surface the FCC Rules appear to be similar to component level
testing - but under the hood, they are completely different. There are
PCs out there that fail by as much as 20dB. 

I am all for a more logical and consistent design approach to EMC!!

Thank you
Charles Grasso
Advisory Engineer
StorageTek
2270Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247.
Tel:303-673-2908
Fax:303-661-7115
email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Web Site:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/




-Original Message-
From: Lou Gnecco [mailto:l...@tempest-inc.com]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 6:52 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: NEAR/ FAR FIELD CORRELATION ISSUES



For this to work, the government would have to change the rules completely,
setting a new set of near field procedures and  limits. This is doable but
hard to sell.

A good way to start would be if we did it. If someone in industry
writes up a procedure and a set of limits, then everyone could use that as a
"straw man", (criticizing and refining it) until eventually most people
agreed.
Eventually it could become an industrial (such as IEEE) standard.
Then the govt would find it much easier to adopt it as is or after making
their own modifications. 

lou 


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

ITE Equipment installed in hospitals

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Does anyone know if ITE equipment is required to
meet any Medical requirements if installed in
a hospital. (No patient connections!!)
Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027
Tel: (303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: History Class ...

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

All,

The general consensus is that the emissions specs were
derived to "protect" intentional receivers. 

ALERT: Be aware that a giant ITE company that has a vested
interest in PCs has managed to render the emissions spec. useless.

Somehow the FCC allowed FCCB + FCCB = FCCB in CFR47 for component
combinations!! For example: If Company A mixes a certified motherboard
from company B with a certified video card from company C then Company A
can affix the FCC logo WITHOUT testing. The FCC and others freely admit
that the resultant mix can fail - I have private emails that such
mixtures have FAILED by as much as 20db over Class B!!

The FCC have managed to render the emissions test irrelevant and
causes the electronics industry to add cost. 

So much for protection.

Thank you
Charles Grasso
Advisory Engineer
StorageTek
2270Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247.
Tel:303-673-2908
Fax:303-661-7115
email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Web Site:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/




-Original Message-
From: Dave Clark [mailto:david.cl...@spke.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 1999 7:31 AM
To: 'Lou Gnecco'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: History Class ... 



Doug,

I don't know the exact history behind the limits.  However, one thing you
may want to keep in mind is that emissions limits are based on protecting
intentional receivers which have relatively sensitive front ends.  Thus
driving tight emissions limits from unintentional radiators.  Do they need
to be as tight as they are?  We could discuss for a while.

David Clark
Spike Technologies, Inc.

-Original Message-
From:   Lou Gnecco [mailto:l...@tempest-inc.com]
Sent:   Thursday, May 27, 1999 9:31 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:Re: History Class ... 


Doug,
Some of these limits were based on the field
strength that you
typically encounter in an urban area.

Lou


At 01:45 PM 5/27/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Anyone have a clue where the limits (frequency 
>and amplitude) for CISPR-22 came from? 
>
>For instance ... 
>
>Radiated Limits for Class A at 10 meters
>
> FrequencyQuasi-Peak limits  
>   MHz  dBuV 
>
>  30 - 230  40 
>
>  230 - 100047 
>
>
>Why the 40 dBuV/m limit from 30 - 230 MHz? 
>
>
>Or any other similar standard limits for that matter? 
>
>Regards, Doug McKean 
>
>
>-
>This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
>To cancel your subscription, send mail to
majord...@ieee.org
>with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
>quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
>jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
>roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>
>


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Thank you all.

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

I am always astonished at the depth of knowledge and 
willingness to share.

Thank you all for your help

Thank you
Charles Grasso
Advisory Engineer
StorageTek
2270Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247.
Tel:303-673-2908
Fax:303-661-7115
email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Web Site:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Immunity requirements for equiment sold to research labs.

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

 Can anyone tell me what the
Immunity requirements for equiment sold to research labs might be.
Charles Grasso
Advisory Engineer
StorageTek
2270Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247.
Tel:303-673-2908
Fax:303-661-7115
email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Web Site:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Reminder - Register before May 12 for RMCEMC Symposium

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hello,

For all you folks interested in attending the RMCEMC EMC
Symposium on May 18 - a reminder.!!

Register (using our easy online form) before May 12
and get FREE breakfast AND lunch.

Our website address is
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc

Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027
Tel: (303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Anyone interested in PCB Design Techniques for SI & EMC?

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

The Rocky Mountain Chapter of the EMC Society will be
hosting a Mr. Mark Montrose who will present a 3.5 hr
training class on PCB Design Techniques for SI & EMC.

He will also present research data (unpublished and undiscovered)
on the performance of decoupling capacitors at this meeting.

For more information please access our website at:

Web Site:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/

Thank you

Charles Grasso
ViceChairman
Rocky Mountain Chapter EMC Society. 
Tel: (303)673-2908
Fax: (303)661-7115




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: explanation of ESD events with coins in baggie.

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

I would recommend that Doug Smith of Auspex Systems
answer this one as he has presented this at an ANSI C63
ESD meeting and to the FAA.(He managed to crash their 
computers)!!

Thank you
Charles Grasso
Advisory Engineer
StorageTek
2270Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247.
Tel:303-673-2908
Fax:303-661-7115
email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Web Site:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/




-Original Message-
From: Hans Mellberg [mailto:emcconsult...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 12:11 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: explanation of ESD events with coins in baggie. 




There is an expanation for this seemingly unlikely event. 

Having coins in a baggie and jingeling them causes the following
events to occur:

The rubbing of a coin against the polymer causes triboelectric
charging of both the coin and localized areas of the bag. Since there
are multiple coins, each coin will charge at some voltage level but
not necessarily the same as another coin. When two coins of different
charged voltages come within dielectric breakdown distances, a
discharge will occur from one coin to the other in order to equalize
the charge distribution (q1=C1V1 and q2=C2V2. When they touch, the new
q1 will be C1V3 and q2= C2V3 where V3=(q1+q2)/(C1+C2)). Since coins
are electrically small with very small capacitances, the expected
discharge waveform has a very fast risetime hence the radiation at the
GHz region.  There will also be discharges from the localized charged
areas of the polymer to coins of different voltages. While separating
two charged surfaces from each other, the voltage rises significantly
since the capacitance is being reduced and the conservation of charge
must be preserved which is the basis for tribolectric voltage
generation.
Hope that helps
Hans Mellberg


---b...@namg.us.anritsu.com wrote:
>
> Hi Douglas,
> 
> What you described is very interesting! But I cannot understand
"Jingling 
> change in a ziplock bag produces very high levels of super fast
transients 
> up into the GHz range." It seems to me that jingling coins, jangling
keys, 
> and slamming metal door would certainly produce acoustic waves. How
come 
> they also produced electromagnetic waves? If do, under what
conditions? 
> What is the mechanism to produce "very high level" of transient EM
waves? 
> Did that company incorporate those kinds of "Jingling change in a
ziplock 
> bag" tests into regular ESD tests for their thereafter products?
What is 
> the lessen we all should learn from this particular example?
> 
> Hopefully you don't think it's offensive to ask above questions. I
am just 
> very curious.
>  
> Thank you.
> Best Regards,
> Barry Ma
> (408)778-2000 x 4465 
> 
> -
> Original Text
> From: "Douglas McKean" , on 3/10/99 2:55 PM:
> At 08:03 AM 3/8/99 PST, Bailin Ma wrote:
> >Hi Group,
> >
> >We have already seen awards for the most misleading ads, worst
attire, 
> >worst films, .
> >Why not awards for worst EMC and PS qualities?
> >
> >Barry Ma
> >Morgan Hill, CA 95037
> 
> 
> Long ago in another company, I was completing the testing 
> for a large rack mounted device, i.e. emissions, immunity, 
> safety, some parts of Bellcore.  We got a call from one 
> of our customers complaining about how sensitive our equipment 
> was and how susceptible it was to ESD events during their own 
> testing of our equipment.  This was deemed unacceptable by them.  
> This decision of theirs jeopardized a sale of several million 
> dollars.  The finger was duly pointed by everyone right to yours 
> truly. My head was literally in no uncertain terms put on the block. 
> 
> I contested producing repeatable and acceptable ESD test results 
> that were BELOW the BER levels specified by Bellcore with ESD test 
> levels ABOVE that specified by the test standard.  I wanted as much 
> margin as possible for our product.   
> 
> Well, it ended up that if you stood three to four feet in front of 
> the rack and jingled change in your pocket or jangled a set of keys 
> in front of it, the product would RESET.  Jingling change in a
ziplock 
> bag produces very high levels of super fast transients up into the
GHz 
> range.   Worse, slamming the metal door to the lab in which the
equipment 
> was setup would also reset the product.  The lab door was say 20 or
so 
> feet from our equipment under test.  It took six months of a redesign 
> cycle to straighten out that one, but it was finally done. 
> 
> I always wanted to find out who in God's name could have come 
> up with such an insidious ESD test by simply putting some change 
> in a zip lock bag and jingling it in front of equipment.  
> But, I figured "he", whoever he was, was lost in time.  
> 
> And wouldn't you know it?  ... 
> 
> I now work for that man. 
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (wi

RE: Current Probes

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hi Jim, Kicking back ready for the week end eh?

Thank you for your comments. I think however that the original
thread was for immunity testing. My limited experience has been
that delivering 10VRMS above about 200MHz is a problem with
most probes.

Are you referring to emissions?

Thank you
Charles Grasso
Advisory Engineer
StorageTek
2270Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247.
Tel:303-673-2908
Fax:303-661-7115
email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Web Site:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/




-Original Message-
From: Knighten, Jim [mailto:knigh...@trans.sandiegoca.ncr.com]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 4:47 PM
To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz); emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Current Probes


Chaz,

I was scrolling through old messages and came across this one.  Always
ready to provide a counter example, I routinely use a current probe at
500 MHz on our high speed digital data switching equipment.  It was
better than anything else early in the design phase.

Jim Knighten

Dr. Jim Knightene-mail: jlknigh...@ieee.org
Senior Consulting Engineer
NCR
17095 Via del Campo
San Diego, CA 92127 http://www.ncr.com
Tel: 619-485-2537
Fax: 619-485-3788


-Original Message-
From:   Grasso, Charles (Chaz)
[SMTP:gra...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, November 25, 1998 4:38 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org; 'Donald McElhearn'
Subject:RE: Current Probes

There is no doubt that the use of a current probe can
effectively
illuminate problems with an EUT. But the method can really only
be used effectively up to about 200MHz or so and (heres the
kicker) is about 6db harsher on the EUT than the Radiated
Immunity
test. In other words, you may cause a failure with the probe
that
the cannot be repested in the RI test.
Thank you
Charles Grasso
(Capn Hook)

> --
> From: Donald McElhearn[SMTP:don...@hq.rossvideo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 9:25 AM
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Current Probes
> 
> 
> Could some of the more experienced member of this forum share

> there views and or experiences on the usefulness of current
probes 
> in carry out pre-compliance RF immunity testing.
> 
> I am aware that there are limitation to this method of current

> injection to simulate true RF field immunity conditions. 
> 
> Short of a screened anechoic chamber can this method allow a 
> manufactuer some means of evaluating what he/she may 
> experience under real test conditions? 
> 
> Do the costs justify the benefits?
> 
> Donald Mcelheran
> Product Development Co-ordinator
>   
> 
>
> 
>  
> 
> 
>   
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Seeking PCs that Pass CISPR

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Unfortunately - its now the law (of this land) anyway!!

-Original Message-
From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 10:17 AM
To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz); nbels...@nortelnetworks.com;
eric.lif...@natinst.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Seeking PCs that Pass CISPR


In a message dated 3/5/99 11:01:58 AM Central Standard Time,
gra...@louisville.stortek.com writes:

<< I am confused. What's the problem?
 If we (the EMC Community) have faith in
 Plug & Play (as the new FCC process is dubbed) then you
 should be able to buy ANY FCC logoed PC and pass.
  >>

I can't imagine ANY EMC engineer having faith in a plug and play approach!

Derek.

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Seeking PCs that Pass CISPR

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

I am confused. What's the problem?
If we (the EMC Community) have faith in
Plug & Play (as the new FCC process is dubbed) then you
should be able to buy ANY FCC logoed PC and pass.

-Original Message-
From: Nathan Belsher [mailto:nbels...@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 6:45 AM
To: eric.lif...@natinst.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Seeking PCs that Pass CISPR


Eric,

I understand your dilemma.   Having been on both sides of the fence of this
issue I must say it can be a sticky issue. At the very least it can be very
time consuming testing various machines to get a quiet one.  Here is my
current
experience and my recommendation from past experience.

I have just recently finished another round of testing for FCC, CISPR,
BELLCORE, and EN50082-1 on a system that has gone through this
testing several times as I do my work on ASDL modems.  I have had better
than
4 dbuv margin on my DELL OPTIPLEX GXPRO 200 MHz. Pentium PRO. Only the usual
problem of having to reseat the cover has ever been a problem for us.

I read Randy Flinders comments and he has some merit.  Randy has had a lot
of
pc testing himself on the West coast.  

Here is my recommendation for power users such as yourself.  Call up the EMC
department at your friendly PC manufacturer.  Tell them you buy several
systems a year for EMC testing. Ask for their current recommendation of a
system to meet your requirements.  Ask them if they will do a courtesy audit
of the system you buy before you get it and  verify it meets the required
standards particularly 
radiated emissions.  You can place the order through regular sales channels
and
have it shipped to the EMC engineering department where they test it as an
audit test and then ship it on to you with the complimentary data package.
This may 
add about one month to your procurement cycle but it gets positive results.
This is the only way I know to be sure you get an EMC compliant system. 

Nathan Belsher
NORTEL NETWORKS
Senior EMC Engineer
Phone:  (919)-991-2769   ESN:351-2769
FAX: (919)-991-8724
E-Mail:  nbels...@nortelnetworks.com

-Original Message-
From:   eric.lif...@natinst.com [SMTP:eric.lif...@natinst.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, March 03, 1999 6:11 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:Seeking PCs that Pass CISPR

Colleagues,

My (formerly) preferred vendor of Intel based personal computer
systems,
used for CISPR-11/22 and immunity testing of our boards and
peripherals,
are lately having emissions up to the Class A limit fresh out of the
box -
without any peripherals attached.  So I must query the List Members
for
experience-based suggestions for make and model of a passing system
that I
can buy here in the USA.

I need Pentium II equivalent PCI/ISA systems that pass Class A with
at
least 4 dB of margin and endure EN 50082-1:1992 testing on a weekly
basis
for most of a year.  Systems that can pass EN 50082-1:1998 (or EN
61326-1:1998) would be nice but I suspect few, if any, are
available.  We
buy about 4 new machines each year as they wear out.

Please don't suggest that I complain to the PC vendor since I really
don't
have time to spend on the matter.  I've already traded our newest PC
to
another department that doesn't care about EMC in exchange for an
older
compliant PC.  I just need a long-term solution.

Most importantly, please send your recommendations direct to me to
minimize
clutter on the list.  Unless you specify not to, I'll post a summary
of all
comments to the list since I believe others are equally interested
in the
results.

Regards and Thanks In Advance,
Eric Lifsey
Compliance Engineer/Manager
National Instruments



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Signal Line Output Surge Protection

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

I would suggest a spark gap designed into the artwork. These work
very effectively.
Thank you
Charles Grasso
(Capn Hook)

> --
> From: UMBDENSTOCK, DON[SMTP:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 11:26 AM
> To:   'EMC-PSTC Discussion Group'
> Subject:  Signal Line Output Surge Protection
> 
> One of our products required surge protection on a transmit output line to
> comply with a UL requirement.  The designer chose an MOV across the
> differential output.  When we performed a radiated emissions measurement,
> we
> found the previously compliant design to be "screaming" (~ 15 dB over the
> limit).  Removing the MOV resolved the EMC problem, but then we have the
> UL
> problem.  
> 
> The protection we were looking for was 120 V clamp, capable of handling a
> 3
> joule test with a peak voltage of 2400 V applied.
> 
> Just curious, has anyone had a similar situation?  A particular supplier
> indicated that others had reported MOVs to be disastrous from an EMC
> perspective.  MOVs appear to be a device with a general rule of thumb
> "don't
> use on 'signal' lines".  Any experiences you would like to share?  What
> was
> your solution?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Don Umbdenstock
> Sensormatic
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Compliance Issue on (Need 220VAC Power Strips for Racks)

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Well I trust you have found the strip. I would like to take this opportunity
to ask a complinace question.

If you are supplying rack equipment, how do you intend to verify the
EMC performance of the final configuration?

Thank you
Charles Grasso
(Capn Hook)

> --
> From: rkes...@monitoringtech.com[SMTP:rkes...@monitoringtech.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 4:53 PM
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Need 220VAC Power Strips for Racks
> 
> Hello to all,
> 
> I am in need of finding an EMI, surge protected, etc., etc. power strip
> for 220VAC.  We are assembling  rack mounted equipment that will be sold
> in the EU.
> 
> It may be me, but I am finding it very difficult to locate (domestic/USA)
> manufacturers like Tripplite for CE approved plug strips.
> 
> Ideally, these would be IEC320 type plug/sockets that can be mounted in a
> 19" rack.  I'm sure they exist!  Don't they?
> 
> If anyone, especially the other side of the river, can point me to a
> url/phone number it would be greatly appreciated!
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Ray Kester
> MTC
> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: ESD Test Plane Material Type

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hello..

I have performed ESD tests in many different labs and have come across
all the typical variations one would expect. I  could not discern any
performance
difference between a copper or aluminium or even a galvanized steel ground
plane.
Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262
gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


> --
> From: Gary McInturff[SMTP:gmcintu...@packetengines.com]
> Reply To: Gary McInturff
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 8:14 AM
> To:   chris_dup...@compuserve.com; INTERNET:dlo...@advanced-input.com;
> emc-pstc
> Subject:  RE: ESD Test Plane Material Type
> 
> Haven't tried copper but have had no problem - that I could detect - from
> using the aluminum. Its also a little easier to get single large sheets of
> aluminum. Use fasteners that have some sort of surface penetrating
> contact.
> All aluminum oxides starting right after production. (So does copper).
> Gary
> 
>   -Original Message-
>   From:   chris_dup...@compuserve.com
> [SMTP:chris_dup...@compuserve.com]
>   Sent:   Monday, December 07, 1998 11:27 PM
>   To: INTERNET:dlo...@advanced-input.com; emc-pstc
>   Subject:ESD Test Plane Material Type
> 
>   Hi Darrell.
> 
>   You wrote:
> 
>1000-4-2
> 
>   indicates that either copper or aluminum may be used for the
> Horizontal 
>   Coupling Plane and Ground Reference Plane.  I do not see whether it
> matters
> 
>   much and would prefer aluminum.  Has anyone found or heard of any 
>   differences between aluminum and copper for the ESD test set-up?
>   >
> 
>   The material used for your ESD coupling plane and ground reference
> is
>   effectively irrelevant.  Alumimium is fine.  
> 
>   Regards,
> 
>   Chris Dupres
>   Surrey, UK.
> 
>   -
>   This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
>   To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
>   with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
>   quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
>   j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
>   roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Doubt on LISN utilization

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

CISPR does NOT require the Ground choke..
Thank you
Charles Grasso
(Capn Hook)

> --
> From: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz[SMTP:mur...@inep.ufsc.br]
> Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 3:46 AM
> To:   Helge Knudsen
> Cc:   'EMC-PSTC - IEEE'
> Subject:  Re: Doubt on LISN utilization
> 
> <><>
> Hello Group,
> 
> Thanks for all that answered my question. This question was due to some
> measurements of conducted emissions that i've made. First, i've done
> measurements with the Ground Choke in position "OUT". Then, the ambient
> interference diminished a lot, as shows Fig. 1. Then i've switched the
> ground choke to "IN" position, as shows Fig. 2. The standards i'm using
> are based on European Standards ( CISPR 22, CISPR 15). Figs. 1 and 2 are
> attached.
> 
> So, when i try to do measurements, the spectra of conducted emissions
> change according to switch position (ground choke on or off).
> 
> My questions are:
> 
> => Which emission measurement should i trust: the one with switch "IN"
> or the one in "OUT" position (ground choke "in" or "out")
> 
> => Could somebody make clear to me if CISPR requires this ground choke?
> 
> => the ground choke is a must only in VDE measurements?
> 
> I Think that's all...
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Muriel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helge Knudsen wrote:
> > 
> > Dear group,
> > The use of ground choke in conducted measurements was specified in
> > "Verfügerung 1046/1982" when testing to comply with VDE 0871 if the
> > measured noise was closer to the limit than 5 dB.
> > This second measurement must then also comply with the limit.
> > The value of this ground conductor choke was specified to 1.6 mH.
> > 
> > I believe the reason for this sophisticated measurement were required
> > because the inductance in ground lead in really live may increase the
> noise
> > level with several dB's.
> > I hope this clarified the matter.
> > 
> > Best regards
> > Helge Knudsen
> > Jyske EMC
> > Denmark
> > hknud...@jyske-emc.com
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   Cortland Richmond [SMTP:72146@compuserve.com]
> > Sent:   lørdag, december 05, 1998 05:43
> > To: Gary McInturff; ieee pstc list
> > Subject:RE: Doubt on LISN utilization
> > 
> > As I recall, when testing conducted emissions to VDE 0871, it was
> required
> > to observe noise in the two powered lines with the switch both open and
> > closed, and use the higher result.  Some power supplies would in fact
> give
> > different results if the ground was opened.
> > 
> > An aside: I used to work at Tandy Computer's R&D.  When Tandy quit
> making
> > computers (and I was laid off), I was able to buy a Rhode and Schwarz
> LISN
> > they scrapped -- for $25. It has the ground switch Muriel describes.
> When
> > I bought it for Tandy, it cost much, much more!
> > 
> > Cortland
> > 
> > -
> > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> > quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> > j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> > -
> > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> > quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> > j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> -- 
> 
> ==
> 
>  Muriel Bittencourt de Liz
>  INEP - Instituto de Eletronica de Potencia
>  Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
>  Caixa Postal - 5119
>  88.040-970 - Florianopolis - SC - BRASIL
>  Phone: +55.48.331.9204 - Fax: +55.48.234.5422
>  e-mail:   mur...@inep.ufsc.br
>  Homepage:   http://www.inep.ufsc.br
> 
> ==
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Doubt on LISN utilization

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Gary (and others): I have the same recollection vis-a-vis the VDE
COnducted emisions requirements.
Thank you
Charles Grasso
(Capn Hook)

> --
> From: Gary McInturff[SMTP:gmcintu...@packetengines.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 2:12 PM
> To:   rehel...@mmm.com; Muriel Bittencourt de Liz
> Cc:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Doubt on LISN utilization
> 
> I have a recollection that at one point VDE required the choke in the
> ground
> line of the LISN. Vaguely remembered it had to do with extremely long
> build
> grounds as in high rise buildings etc, or the possibility of no ground
> wire.
> I seem to remember some connection with shielded power cables as well.
> Anyone else have any recollection of this?
> Gary McInturff
> 
>   -Original Message-
>   From:   rehel...@mmm.com [SMTP:rehel...@mmm.com]
>   Sent:   Friday, December 04, 1998 9:26 AM
>   To: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz
>   Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>   Subject:Re: Doubt on LISN utilization
> 
> 
> 
>   It is possible to get noise induced on all cabling at the same time.
> In
>   this case it will be also be present on the ground lead. To reduce
> this
>   noise "ground chokes" are used. It is also extra attenuation for
> common
>   mode currents.
> 
>   Bob Heller
>   Senior EMC Engineer
>   3M Company
>   =
> 
> 
> 
>(Embedded
>image moved   Muriel Bittencourt de Liz 
>to file:  12/03/98 10:59 AM  
>pic11332.pcx)
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Please respond to Muriel Bittencourt de Liz 
> 
> 
>   To:  Lista de EMC da IEEE 
>   cc:   (bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US)
>   Subject:  Doubt on LISN utilization
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Hello All,
> 
>   I have a LISN from EMCO and it has a "Ground Choke". What's the goal
> of
>   this Ground Choke? Is it really needed in the conducted
> measurements?
>   Could somebody make this clear to me?
> 
>   Thanks in advance
> 
>   Muriel
> 
>   --
> 
>   ==
> 
>Muriel Bittencourt de Liz
>INEP - Instituto de Eletronica de Potencia
>Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
>Caixa Postal - 5119
>88.040-970 - Florianopolis - SC - BRASIL
>Phone: +55.48.331.9204 - Fax: +55.48.234.5422
>e-mail:   mur...@inep.ufsc.br
>Homepage:   http://www.inep.ufsc.br
> 
>   ==
> 
>   -
>   This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
>   To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
>   with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
>   quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
>   j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
>   roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
><< File: pic11332.pcx >> 
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Coatings that affect EMC performance

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Try Chromate...
Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262
gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


> --
> From: UMBDENSTOCK, DON[SMTP:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com]
> Reply To: UMBDENSTOCK, DON
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 1:21 PM
> To:   'EMC-PSTC Discussion Group'
> Subject:  Coatings that affect EMC performance
> 
> Hello Group,
> 
> I remember recently (within the last quarter?) reading a thread about
> different coatings, one of which everyone said "don't use".  I have
> searched
> through the RCIC "Recent Threads" and could not find a related subject.
> Can
> anyone steer me to that thread?  (something about "yellow "?)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Don Umbdenstock
> Sensormatic
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Current Probes

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

There is no doubt that the use of a current probe can effectively
illuminate problems with an EUT. But the method can really only
be used effectively up to about 200MHz or so and (heres the
kicker) is about 6db harsher on the EUT than the Radiated Immunity
test. In other words, you may cause a failure with the probe that
the cannot be repested in the RI test.
Thank you
Charles Grasso
(Capn Hook)

> --
> From: Donald McElhearn[SMTP:don...@hq.rossvideo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 9:25 AM
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Current Probes
> 
> 
> Could some of the more experienced member of this forum share   
> there views and or experiences on the usefulness of current probes 
> in carry out pre-compliance RF immunity testing.
> 
> I am aware that there are limitation to this method of current 
> injection to simulate true RF field immunity conditions. 
> 
> Short of a screened anechoic chamber can this method allow a 
> manufactuer some means of evaluating what he/she may 
> experience under real test conditions? 
> 
> Do the costs justify the benefits?
> 
> Donald Mcelheran
> Product Development Co-ordinator
>   
> 
>
> 
>  
> 
> 
>   
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Question on FCC Class B certifications.

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hello all.

I have a question on that centers on the new FCC Class B
certification procedures. 

My company has recently bought a bunch of PCs for use
as emulators during emissions testing. I happened to
notice that while ALL of the PCs had the FCC Class B
logo on their label, some of the PCs also had a statement
that said: "Assembled from FCC Class B compliant components"
as well implying the system had NOT been tested.

Q. Is this allowed in the new regs?
Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262
gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: ENEC Mark for ITE & Other Equipment

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

I believe that it is the ENEC Mark of the VDE (ENEC-Zeichen des VDE) for 
products conforming to harmonized certification procedures; VDE mark is
optional.
Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262
gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


> --
> From: pe...@itl.co.il[SMTP:pe...@itl.co.il]
> Reply To: pe...@itl.co.il
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 1998 2:00 PM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  ENEC Mark for ITE & Other Equipment
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> 1. Can someone explain the European ENEC Mark? Is it for safety, 
> EMC or both?
> 
> 2. Which test organizations can issue this Mark?
> 
> 3. Why is it needed? 
> 
> 4. What is required to maintain the Mark (follow-up inspections, 
> etc.)?
> 
> 5. Can anyone see a trend in the use of this new pan-European 
> Mark?
> 
> 6. Is there anything on the web regarding ENEC?
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> PETER S. MERGUERIAN
> MANAGING DIRECTOR
> PRODUCT TESTING DIVISION
> I.T.L. (PRODUCT TESTING) LTD.
> HACHAROSHET 26, P.O.B. 211
> OR YEHUDA 60251, ISRAEL
> 
> TEL: 972-3-5339022
> FAX: 972-3-5339019
> E-MAIL: pe...@itl.co.il
> Visit our Website: http://www.itl.co.il
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Need Compliance Design Antenna Rental

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hi,

Does anyone know where I can rent(in the US)the broadband antennas
designed & built by Compliance Design?


Thank you
Charles Grasso
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262
gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

SCSI on internal unshielded cables

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hello!

Has anyone successfully run SCSI internally using
unshielded flat cables?

There is some controversy as to cross-talk and Signal 
Integrity and I would really like other folks responses.


Thank you
Charles Grasso
(Captain Hook)
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262
gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Are all these agencies really necessary?

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Yes - One mark, one process would be nice. 
Thank you
Charles Grasso
(Captain Hook)
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262
gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


> --
> From: Dan Mitchell[SMTP:dmitch...@eoscorp.com]
> Reply To: dmitch...@eoscorp.com
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:52 AM
> To:   Grasso, Charles (Chaz); 'emc-pstc'
> Subject:  RE: Are all these agencies really necessary?
> 
> The OM was just an example for purposes of illustration.  A better name
> for 
> such a hypothetical beast would be World Mark (WM).  If you read the 
> earlier thread, you would have read that all the agencies are getting out 
> of hand and that it would be nice to do testing once, then apply for a OM?
> 
>  or WM? and be allowed to sell your product any place in the world
> 
> Daniel W. Mitchell
> Product Safety
> EOS Corp.
> 
> --
> From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz)[SMTP:gra...@louisville.stortek.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 10:25 AM
> To:   Dan Mitchell; 'Peter E. Perkins'
> Cc:   PSNetwork
> Subject:  RE: Are all these agencies really necessary?
> 
> Would someone please explain the OM (Overall Mark)?
> Thank you
> Charles Grasso
> (Captain Hook)
> EMC Engineer
> StorageTek
> 2270 Sth 88th Street
> Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262
> gra...@louisville.stortek.com
> Tel:(303)673-2908
> Fax(303)661-7115
> 
> 
> > --
> > From:   Peter E. Perkins[SMTP:peperk...@compuserve.com]
> > Reply To:   Peter E. Perkins
> > Sent:   Wednesday, September 09, 1998 11:57 PM
> > To: Dan Mitchell
> > Cc: PSNetwork
> > Subject:Are all these agencies really necessary?
> >
> > PSNet & Dan,
> >
> >
> > The OM (Overall Mark) is a good idea that continues to be 
> promoted
> > by industry, especially multinational businesses.  Oh that they had
> > control
> > to proscribe it...  Remember that the underlying basis for all of this
> is
> > a
> > political issue in that nations want to control commerce in some manner
> -
> > and many of the old-time controls have been taken away by treaty (the 
> GATT
> > Treaty).  We work in an arena where the high level politicians tug and
> > pull
> > to get their way.  We see it in the expansion of the need to  have a
> > certification or mark on the products.  Developing nations have figured
> > out
> > that they can easily play this game - just adapt the international
> > standards - ISO/IEC/CISPR, etc. - but demand a local mark of approval. 
> The
> > country supports a team of technical and bureauocratic personel thru the
> > tax that you pay to get their bumper sticker.  Americans, especially, 
> like
> > free enterprise = no restraints.  Big business promoted the use of a
> > manufacturer's based mark for Europe (the CE marking), but were not too
> > happy that there is personal criminal penalty attached to signing the 
> MDoC
> > and applying the mark.Much of the rest of the world isn't ready for
> > the
> > whole potato all at once either.  Note the problems that the Japanese
> and
> > the Koreans are having trying to reform their old-boy networks to open
> > their markets and offer opportunity for growth there...  I predict that 
> it
> > will get worse before it gets better...  So, look at it as job security,
> > at
> > least you're working (which is better than the alternative)...
> >
> >
> > - - - - -
> >
> > Peter E Perkins
> > Principal Product Safety Consultant
> > Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
> >
> > +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax
> >
> > p.perk...@ieee.org  email
> >
> > visit our website:
> >
> > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins
> >
> > - - - - -
> >
> > -
> > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com
> > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> > quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> > ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list
> > administrators).
> >
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list
administrators).

RE: Are all these agencies really necessary?

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Would someone please explain the OM (Overall Mark)?
Thank you
Charles Grasso
(Captain Hook)
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262
gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115


> --
> From: Peter E. Perkins[SMTP:peperk...@compuserve.com]
> Reply To: Peter E. Perkins
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 11:57 PM
> To:   Dan Mitchell
> Cc:   PSNetwork
> Subject:  Are all these agencies really necessary?
> 
> PSNet & Dan,
> 
> 
> The OM (Overall Mark) is a good idea that continues to be promoted
> by industry, especially multinational businesses.  Oh that they had
> control
> to proscribe it...  Remember that the underlying basis for all of this is
> a
> political issue in that nations want to control commerce in some manner -
> and many of the old-time controls have been taken away by treaty (the GATT
> Treaty).  We work in an arena where the high level politicians tug and
> pull
> to get their way.  We see it in the expansion of the need to  have a
> certification or mark on the products.  Developing nations have figured
> out
> that they can easily play this game - just adapt the international
> standards - ISO/IEC/CISPR, etc. - but demand a local mark of approval. The
> country supports a team of technical and bureauocratic personel thru the
> tax that you pay to get their bumper sticker.  Americans, especially, like
> free enterprise = no restraints.  Big business promoted the use of a
> manufacturer's based mark for Europe (the CE marking), but were not too
> happy that there is personal criminal penalty attached to signing the MDoC
> and applying the mark.Much of the rest of the world isn't ready for
> the
> whole potato all at once either.  Note the problems that the Japanese and
> the Koreans are having trying to reform their old-boy networks to open
> their markets and offer opportunity for growth there...  I predict that it
> will get worse before it gets better...  So, look at it as job security,
> at
> least you're working (which is better than the alternative)...  
> 
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> Peter E Perkins
> Principal Product Safety Consultant
> Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
> 
> +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax
> 
> p.perk...@ieee.org  email
> 
> visit our website:
> 
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> -
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list
> administrators).
> 

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list
administrators).

RE: Looking for Horror Stories

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Jim,

I sense you may be in justification mode or worse the phrase "value add"
has
reared up. Well, IMHO we have become victims of our own
success. Due to the diligence of many EMC Engineers and the
increase in digital transmissions, cable TV etc,  high 
visibility interference (nuisence) related problems have all but
disappeared. 
Indeed, the FCC has issued a NOI that buried in the text says:
 "We seek to examine whether these regulations continue to be
necessary, and if so, whether any changes to the limits may be
appropriate."
Let me clarify my position. The very fact that problems do NOT occur
is an excellent reason to maintain EMC standards.

So the main justification becomes a legal one. 
You will have to go back a number of years to find the first
non-EMEmissions standard. As I recall, the first EME standard was 
actually VDE 0871 and the German government was concerned
primarily with emissions interfering with legitimate communication.
Largely as a result of that CBEMA released a document that finally
became
FCC CFR47 Part 15. And so an industry was born.

Apart from the jail terms, the main risk is marketability. Without the
BCIQ mark, your products sit on the dock. Period. So EMC is part of the 
cost of doing buisness and its our job (as EMC folks) to keep that cost
as low as possible.


 

Thank you
Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262
gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115
Symposium Website URL:
http://www.ball.com/aerospace/ieee_emc.html


> --
> From: WOODS, RICHARD[SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com]
> Reply To: WOODS, RICHARD
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 8:38 AM
> To:   'emc-pstc list server'; 'Knighten, Jim'
> Subject:  RE: Looking for Horror Stories
> 
> In its fomative years, a major US PC manufacturer felt that FCC
> certification was not a barrier to marketing. Standard operating
> procedure
> was to sell while the authorization was in process. Then the FCC
> arrived to
> shut down their factory. The VP of Engineering met with the FCC in
> Washington at the last minute and worked out an agreement that kept
> the
> factory running. After that point, FCC certification and other agency
> approvals became a requirement before shipment was authorized. Today,
> that
> company has a world class compliance operation, and I am proud to have
> taken
> part in that process.
> 
> Richard Woods
> Sensormatic Electronics
> wo...@sensormatic.com
> Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of
> Sensormatic.
> 
> 
> > --
> > From:   Knighten, Jim[SMTP:knigh...@exchange.sandiegoca.ncr.com]
> > Reply To:   Knighten, Jim
> > Sent:   Tuesday, July 14, 1998 7:24 PM
> > To: 'emc-pstc list server'
> > Subject:Looking for Horror Stories
> > 
> > To All:
> > 
> > My management is drafting an "educational" briefing for higher
> > management on the degree of seriousness of regulatory compliance
> > (primarily aimed at EMC).
> > 
> > I would appreciate your sharing with me any tales of woe, penalties,
> > incarceration, or any other horror stories related to companies who
> have
> > either inadvertently not complied with the regulations, or who have
> been
> > deliberately lax in doing so.  Again, EMC is more my interest.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > Jim
> >
> --
> --
> > ---
> > Dr. Jim Knighten
> > NCR
> > 17095 Via del Campo
> > San Diego, CA 92127
> > Telephone: 619-485-2537
> > Fax: 619-485-3788
> > e-mail: jim.knigh...@sandiegoca.ncr.com
> > 
> 

RE: CB scheme

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

I have been told that the Russian Authorities
will only accept a CB report from Nemko. Is this true?
Thank you
Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262
gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115
Symposium Website URL: http://www.ball.com/aerospace/ieee_emc.html


>--
>From:  Peter Tarver[SMTP:peter.tarver.ptar...@nt.com]
>Reply To:  Peter Tarver
>Sent:  Monday, June 22, 1998 4:28 PM
>To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject:   RE: CB scheme
>
>Gary -
>
>You seem to be doing just fine for your current market.  As you market
>expands (you mentioned GOST), however, the CB Scheme Test Report does offer
>portability to a greater degree than a lesser.  Many of the agencies will
>want a sample for a looksee, a few may want to perform minor verification
>tests or testing to accommodate applicable national deviations from the base
>standard.  Overall, you will save time and inventory, but not necessarily
>money, by using the CB Scheme.  Without it, you might wind up having to
>provide one or more samples to any of several test houses.
>
>Alternatively, you could also look into what Mutual Recognition Agreements
>your domestic test house has with foreign test houses to see if they meet
>your needs.
>
>Regards,
>
>Peter L. Tarver
>Nortel
>ptar...@nt.com
>
>> --
>> From:Gary McInturff[SMTP:gmcintu...@packetengines.com]
>> Sent:Monday, June 22, 1998 9:09 AM
>> 
>> If ignorance is bliss I must be a pretty happy guy. I have sort of
>> avoided asking this question because I seem to be the only guy that
>> doesn't fully understand the answer to this question.
>>  Currently I use the standard US/Canadian private label mark and
>> one from Germany to meet the appropriate safety requirements. Our
>> principle market are US, Europe, and Japan.
>>  I can get both the US and European investigations done
>> concurrently with the same product samples, and I have yet to have a
>> problem getting the equipment accepted by either the clients or the
>> countries in which they reside.
>>  Given that what are the advantages I am not seeing in a CB
>> scheme report? 
>> On the face of it a CB scheme report seems to be the proverbial
>> one-stop-shopping solution we would all like to see. But as I check into
>> it further a CB report doesn't seem to really provide a final answer.
>> Each agency still has the prerogative of requesting samples although
>> they may accept the test data from the CB approved lab. (UL for example
>> indicated they probably would want a sample along with the report).
>> Whether the issue is testing or product evaluation having to have some
>> agency put me in their queue for approval seems to be a big step
>> backwards.
>> Currently, having recognized private label marks for Europe and the US
>> has yet to cause a hitch in the normal customer base shipments.
>>  GOST and NOM are on the horizon and I suppose that because I
>> have to send them products anyway because they are not part of the EC
>> and want their own marks it suggests that a CB report might be
>> beneficial in this case in speeding up the approval but overall I don't
>> see a significant benefit to a CB scheme instead of my current approach.
>> Am I missing the obvious? Am I making my life more difficult and
>> expensive than it should be?
>> 
>

RE: EMC/Safety in Poland

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

I have an ITE question..

Is the Polish B mark required for Class A gear (as defined
by CISPR22)?
Thank you
Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262
gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115
Symposium Website URL: http://www.ball.com/aerospace/ieee_emc.html


>--
>From:  geor...@lexmark.com[SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
>Reply To:  geor...@lexmark.com
>Sent:  Thursday, June 18, 1998 6:51 AM
>To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject:   RE: EMC/Safety in Poland
>
>Bogdan,
>
>You are probably correct on the wiring issue.  The problem is
>trying to get answers as to why from the PCBC.  We use business
>partners who are residents of Poland in Warsaw to work with the
>PCBC and still had difficulty understanding the "extra"
>requirements.
>
>If the problem is the plug, as you say, why would other affected
>countries not require the same manual statments?  For Class II
>equipment, reversal of phase and neutral will have little effect
>on the safety of the equipment.
>
>I am well aware that either the wall plug or the appliance inlet
>connector can serve as the official disconnect.  Perhaps the PCBC
>is not equally aware of this.  However, in this case, the issue
>of disconnct has nothing to do with safety, but of economy of
>electrical power.  Some ITE when turned "off" is designed to go
>into a "sleep" or idle mode.  If the user is not aware of this,
>and must achieve zero watts, I suppose only a manual statement
>can solve this problem.
>
>George
>
>
>Please respond to Bogdan Matoga
>  
>
>To:   George Alspaugh@LEXMARK,
>  emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
>cc:
>bcc:
>Subject:  RE: EMC/Safety in Poland
>
>
>
>
>George:
>I am sorry, but your statement that Polish outlets are not always wired
>correctly is incomplete at best.
>The problem is the plug, which can be reversed, even when everything is
>wired correctly. The same "problem" exists also in Germany. France
>avoided the possibility of reversal but different configuration of the
>grounding pin which protrudes from the face of their outlet, the
>corresponding plug has a female connector for this pin. As far as
>"miswiring" of outlets is concerned, you can find that even in the
>U.S.A., intended to say that even non-reversible plugs are no guarantee
>that a single pole switch (or fuse) does the job.
>Furthermore, as far as on/off switches are cincerned, IEC950, Sec. 2.6.2
>permits the use of the plug on the power supply cord etc. as a
>disconnect device.
>Regards,
>Bogdan.
>bogdan.mat...@fibre.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 12:39 PM
> To:  emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: EMC/Safety in Poland
>
> Susan,
>
> You may find one or more of the following requirments as well:
>
> Signed and "sealed" statements pertaining to your ground
> continuity and hi-pot testing.
>
> Manual statement that the product must be unplugged to reduce
> power (watts) to zero.  Polish law requires all unused ITE to be
> turned off at night.  Some low end ITE do not have on/off
> switches as at rest power is only 3-5W.
>
> Manual statement if the on/off  switch does not break both sides
> (phase and neutral) on line.  Polish outlets are not always
> wired as intended.
>
> An inspection of your factory by PCBC inspector.  Ours took two
> days, at our expense.
>
> etc..
>
> George Alspaugh
>
>
> Please respond to krzysiak%polbox@interlock.lexmark.com
>
> To:   emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
> cc:   Susan Beard  (bcc:
>George
>   Alspaugh)
> bcc:  George Alspaugh
> Subject:  Re: EMC/Safety in Poland
>
>
>
> Dear Susan,
>
> Before obtaining "B" safety certificate of ITE in Poland you
>have to
> deliver:
> Application form
> CB Test Certificate
> CB Test Report
> Operation manual
> Service manual
> Test reports (RFI)
> to Polish Centre for Testing and Certification
> (see: http://www.cbscheme.org/country/cbpoland.htm for details)
> If you don't have any test reports you may let an accredited
>laboratory
> in Poland (like this one below) to carry out these tests for
>you:
> - safety acc. to PN-93/T-42107 (idt. IEC 950: 1991 +A1: 1992 +
>A2:
> 1993),
> - radiofrequency disturbance acc. to PN-EN 55022: 1996 (idt.
>CISPR 22:
> 1993 document).
> Best regards,
>
>
> Krzysztof Sieczkarek
> Laboratory of Automatic Identification Techniques
> Institute of Logistics and Warehousing
> Poznan, Poland
> fax +48 61 8526376
> http://www.ilim.poznan.pl/la/index_E.html
>
>
> Susan Beard wrote:
> >
> >   I recently read an article in Conformity discussing Poland's
>"B" mark
> for safety certification.  Could anyone in this group provide
>more
> information on bo

RE: GS Requirements

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

I have been following this thread with interest and would like to ask
Ing. Gert Gremmen a pointed question.

Gert, In your email you stated:

"For the moment all i want to say is that the GOAL of all so-called
new-approach directives is and was to stop all barriers that existed for
importing and exporting any goods.  The GOAL of the ce-mark was to 
introduce a common symbol to show that the product marked had free
access to the full EU."

Q. Does Germany, or any other EU country, impose a fine on ITE products
that comply
with the Class A EMI limits intended for commercial applications?


Thank you
Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262
gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115
Symposium Website URL: http://www.ball.com/aerospace/ieee_emc.html


>--
>From:  Ing. Gert Gremmen[SMTP:cet...@cetest.nl]
>Reply To:  Ing. Gert Gremmen
>Sent:  Monday, April 27, 1998 2:09 PM
>To:WOODS, RICHARD; 'emc-pstc'
>Subject:   RE: GS Requirements
>
>Hello Richard, Group,
>
>I will come back to the legal aspects of this.
>
>For the moment all i want to say is that the GOAL of all so-called
>new-approach directives is and was to stop all barriers that existed for
>importing and exporting
>any goods.  The GOAL of the ce-mark was to introduce a common symbol to show
>that the product marked had free access to the full EU.
>
>It applies to toys, elevators, sterile injection needles as well as
>electronic typewriters.
>It applies to machines, simple pressure vessels and sailing boats.
>It will apply to many more goods in the near future.
>
>If for any reason and for any beliefs any local national law could resist
>this European regime of ce-marking, the whole foundation under ce-marking
>would fall down.
>
>I am not a lawyer in European affairs, but i understand well how the ce-mark
>stuff has been implemented and how it is meant to be.
>
>Therefore, if any legal hole exists, it will be filled up, unless the EC is
>really less powerful as f.a. Germany.
>
>I suggest that one of you, not being a test-house or consultant, innocently
>directs this question to Mr. Bangemann of the European Commission.
>
>Let's hear what he has to say.
>
>To be read:  The New Approach (legislation and standards on the free
>movement of goods in Europe)  by CENELEC
>
>
>Other considerations  (from seminar papers)
>
>Basic conditons for the free Eur. market:
>
>Free traffic of  persons / goods/ services/ money
>
>1/ Stop taxes on importing
>2/ stop limitiations in quantity
>3/ Stop all measures of equal effect including technical limitations
>
>Technical limitations are :
>
>National technical regulations
>National standards
>National test- and certification procedures
>
>1. Stopping limitations by:
>
>Mutual recognition
>
>exceptions :
>- public order
>- public health, lives of persons and plants or animals in danger
>- national properties artistic or historic
>- industrial and commercial properties
>
>Exceptions should be no hidden limitations.
>
>2. harmonisation of technical regulations
>
>1983 information phase
>1985 new approach directives
>1989 global approach for conformity assessment
>
>Directive 83/189/EEC:
>Goal:
>- stop implementations of new national regulations
>- halt progress on national initiatives
>
>Contents:
>
>- notifying necessary for new national regulations (to EC)
>- hold off period for national regulations
>
>
>
>So far:
>
>Gert Gremmen
>
>
>
>== Ce-test, Qualified testing ==
>Consultants in EMC, Electrical safety and Telecommunication
>Compliance tests for European standards and ce-marking
>Member of NEC/IEC voting committee for EMC.
>Our Web presence: http://www.cetest.nl
>List of current harmonized standards http://www.cetest.nl/emc-harm.htm
>15 great tips for the EMC-designer http://www.cetest.nl/features01.htm
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From:  owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of WOODS, RICHARD
>Sent:  maandag 27 april 1998 14:07
>To:'emc-pstc'
>Subject:   RE: GS Requirements
>
>This has been a very interesting thread. There appears to be two distinct
>groups of thought. One group believes that an EU state can enforce a state
>law affecting trade as long as it is not in violation of a Directive.
>Another group seems to believe that no EU state may enforce a law the tends
>to impede trade. To this latter group I ask the question, what is the legal
>basis for this claim?
>
>Richard Woods
>Sensormatic Electronics
>wo...@sensormatic.com
>Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of
>Sensormatic.
>
>

RE: EN 55022 ITE Class A vs. Class B?

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Well, This would be an appropriate occasion to open this can of worms
again!

 Ing. Gert Gremmen's response would, at first blush, lead you to
conclude that the
whole of the EU believes that Class B is the REQUIRED emissions level
for ITE. I do 
not agree. The push for Class B for ITE has been and still is being
pushed by Germany.
Indeed I believe the German EMC folks punish Class A ITE by imposing a
fine at each
and every installation. If this is true then Germany is violating the
fair trading practices
of the EU but no-one seems to be able to stop them. Please - if I am
mistaken can 
some-one tell me??

To be fair, there is some precedent to the insistence of Class B to ITE
and it stems from 
the original tie-ins of the Generic Emissions Standard and the Generic
Immunity Standard
which tied in Class B emissions and Light Industrial Immunity levels.
However with the
release of the family specific ITE emissions standard and the pending
release of the family 
specific Immunity standard, the general industry opinion was that this
tie in had gone away.

Comments??







 
Thank you
Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262
gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115
Symposium Website URL: http://www.ball.com/aerospace/ieee_emc.html


>--
>From:  Ing. Gert Gremmen[SMTP:cet...@cetest.nl]
>Reply To:  Ing. Gert Gremmen
>Sent:  Wednesday, April 08, 1998 1:10 AM
>To:Tommy H. Lee
>Cc:EMC-PSTC
>Subject:   Re: EN 55022 ITE Class A vs. Class B?
>
>hello Tommy,
>
>
>For ITE equipment you'd better perform to Class B, in the whole of the EU.
>Class A is restricted to industrial locations only, and this is according to
>the EMC-directive very limited area.
>
>Garages, hospitals, offices and even standard light industry should be
>classified acc. to B.
>
>
>Difference between A and B is distance of testing. The limits for Class A
>are valid at a testing distance of 30 meters, where Class B requires them to
>be met at 10 meters.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ing. Gert  Gremmen
>== Ce-test, Qualified testing ==
>Consultants in EMC, Electrical safety and Telecommunication
>Compliance tests for European standards and ce-marking
>Member of NEC/IEC voting committee for EMC.
>Our Web presence: http://www.cetest.nl
>List of current harmonized standards http://www.cetest.nl/emc-harm.htm
>15 great tips for the EMC-designer http://www.cetest.nl/features01.htm
>
>
>
>
>-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
>Van: Tommy H. Lee 
>Aan: Ing. Gert Gremmen 
>CC: EMC-PSTC 
>Datum: woensdag 8 april 1998 8:04
>Onderwerp: EN 55022 ITE Class A vs. Class B?
>
>
>>Hello Group
>>
>>I know that ITE can meet Class A ITE Limit.
>>The question is concerning European ITE EMI, Class A and B.
>>
>>Has anyone had or have known of problems with a Class A ITE
>>approval versus a Class B ITE approval.
>>
>>I have heard that Germany is requiring Class B on all equipment
>>entering into Germany (or they are planning on this).
>>
>>
>>Best regards.
>>Tommy
>>
>
>

RE: Re[2]: EMC/Harmonics requirements

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

The application date of EN61000-3-2/3 for ITE has been a difficult
problem to resolve. Although the whole would seems to think that the
date is 1/1/2001, I have a slightly different view that I would like to
offer to the group. 

Fundamentally my problem is that the term "dow" is being used
synonymously with "doa" - which means date of application. In other
words most folks are assuming that the dow IS the application date for
ITE. I don't think that is correct.  Here is my analysis, please feel
free to comment:

>EN6100-3-2 is ALREADY in the Official Journal (circa 1995). That
>means that the EU member countries should have been enforcing the
>standard. However, as this enforcement would have caused huge disruption
>to the electronic business, an unofficial decision was made NOT to
>enforce the standard until June of 1998 (A12). 
>
>What CENELEC have recommended is that the dow (for conflicting standards
>[in this case EN60555-3-2]) is 1/1/2001. CENELEC have also recommended
>that A12 to EN61000-3-2 be rescinded.
>
>Here is the crux of the problem.
>
>ITE equipment did NOT fall under the 60555 standard. So the dow of
>1/1/2001 does not apply to ITE - there are no standards to conflict
>with!!
>
>If the Commission agree with CENELEC and as a result the dow is moved to
>2001 and A12 is rescinded - then EN61000-3-2 becomes IMMEDIATELY
>effective for ITE.


>--
>From:  MartinJP[SMTP:marti...@perkin-elmer.com]
>Sent:  Thursday, September 11, 1997 9:02 AM
>To:Mark Briggs; george.da...@unisys.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject:   Re[2]: EMC/Harmonics requirements
>
>In regards to the implementation dates for EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3, I 
>received a letter, dated July 23,1997, from N. Baumier-Duphil Assistant 
>Secretary of IEC SC 77A. 
>
>The letter states:
> 
>"Actually, the situation is ambiguous.  The implementation date of June 1st, 
>1998 for these two EN was approved (EN 61000-3-2/A12) but was never published
>in 
>OJEC.  Then these implementation date do not actually have an official
>status.
>
>During the last BT of CENELEC (July  1-3, 1997), this question was treated.
>The 
>TC 211 of CENELEC , which is in charge of this subject, had proposed to the
>BT 
>to publish the EN 61000-3-2/A12 at the OJEC.  The position taken by the BT is
>the following:
>
>5.5.1 DOW for harmonized EMC standards
>
>D92/195:BT Confirmed that the dow of EN 61000-3-2 and 61000-3-3 remains
>2001-01-
>01 for all products.  An informative document on the consequences of the 
>decision will be circulated.
>
>D92/196:In consequence BT decided to launch a 2MV (2 month vote) on the 
>withdrawl of EN 61000-3-2/A12 which was offered by CENELEC for publication in
>the OJEC but was not published by the commission.
>
>The proposition of the BT must be approved by the European Commission to have
>an 
>official status.  The decision is in progress and has not actually been 
>defined."
>
>Taking this information into consideration, it is my understanding that
>products  
>which were not covered by the 555 series may not be required to meet
>61000-3-2,3  
>until Jan. 1, 2001 depending upon the 2 month vote on the withdrawl of
>61000-3-
>2/A12.
>
>Does anyone have any information on the results of this 2 month vote??
>
>Thanks
>
>Joe Martin
>marti...@perkin-elmer.com   
>
> 
>_
>__
>Subject: Re: EMC/Harmonics requirements
>From:Mark Briggs  at INTERNET
>Date:9/9/97  9:27 PM
>
>
>Does this mean that products that are currently being certified against a 
>product or family standard, such as ITE equipment (EN55022) or ISM 
>equipment (EN55011) as opposed to a generic standard have to meet the 
>requirements of the EN61000-3 specs ??  Neither of these standards 
>mention testing harmonics/flicker or the IEC 555 specs.
>
>Mark
>
>mbri...@elliottlabs.com
>
>
>>__ Reply Separator 
>_
>>Subject: EMC/Harmonics requirements
>>Author:  george.da...@unisys.com at PMDF
>>Date:8/22/97 10:40 AM
>>
>>
>>To All:
>>For information.
>> 
>>The European Union has put out a notice to all national committees aimed 
>>at clarifying the implementation dates for the harmonics and flicker 
>>standards.  (Reference TC741  JPV/is/970722 dated 1997-07-10)  They have 
>>also referenced the 555 series standards and in their minds clarified the 
>>relationship between the two harmonics standards.  The notice is copied 
>>below for your information.  Please note the IEC 555 -2 and 555-3 are 
>>withdrawn and obsolete.  This means CENELEC is not using an international 
>>standard for those products covered.
>> 
>>Dave George
>> 
>> 
>>"Taking  into  account  the  above,  for products  originally  not 
>>falling  within the scope of EN 60555-2/EN 60555-3 but covered by EN 
>>61000-3-2/EN 61000-3-3, presumption of conformity to the ERs of the EMC 
>>Directive exists and is confirmed on the basis

IEEE Conference

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Would anyone care to share what they learned at the conference in
Austin. I have put together some & am willing to mail it off to anyone
who replies.
Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

RE: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hi, 
Yes I attended that presentation. 

In ANSI C63.4 Methods for SA there is a "fudge factor" for taking out
the mutual coupling between antennas for 3M SA measurements. Doesn't
this take care of the problem?

Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

>--
>From:  Cortland Richmond[SMTP:72146@compuserve.com]
>Sent:  Saturday, August 23, 1997 1:53 PM
>To:Thomas Donnelly; ieee pstc list
>Subject:   Re: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation
>
>Tom,
>
>Did you get to the presentation about getting the most out of a biconical
>antenna? Some thoughts contained there on antenna calibration, too.  
>
>I found some time ago that using antennas does lead to the kind of mutual
>coupling Martin talked about, and also -- and this is not mentioned much --
>even
>with small sources, there is a definite surface wave near the ground plane at
>30-35 or 40 MHz. This skews reading upwards, but as it is part of the site
>propagation,  I think it has to be factored out by doing that vertical
>antenna
>factor measurement.  A couple more meters, and the surface wave is no longer
>a
>problem. I say surface wave, because I don't think this is a mutual coupling
>problem. Even small sources seem to generate it. I am presently working on an
>antenna calibration for a semi-anechoic chamber in which I shall be able to
>investigate this more closely.
>
>Regards,
>
>Cortland
>
>

RE: Graphics NOT in posts

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

I would like to align my vote with Brent DeWitt.

Simply ask who wants a particular file then send it directly to the
person requesting the input.
Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
gra...@louisville.stortek.com
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

>--
>From:  Farnsworth,Heber[SMTP:hfarn...@msmail.physio-control.com]
>Sent:  Thursday, July 17, 1997 8:45 AM
>To:'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
>Subject:   RE: Graphics NOT in posts
>
>I must reluctantly agree with Pete. The technology is not quite there
>yet to allow graphics. Soon, I hope.
> --
>From: Peter Tarver
>Subject: RE: Graphics in posts
>However, I do see a problem with sending even small graphics in e-mail.
>

RE: ESD Simulators

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Years ago I had the opportunity of working with a top flight consultant
on ESD and the human-body model. The only manufacturer that produced an
ESD simulator that ACCURATELY reflected the Human Body pulse was Andy
Hish. The ESD simulators today produce a facimile of the true ESD
event in the interest of test consistency.

Of all the simulators I have tried, I like the Schaffner. I find the
controls easy to use - it even has a counter. This is of most importance
to someone as easily distracted as me!! Most of all I like that fact the
10cm separation between the EUT (tabletop) and the gun is built into the
design. Very nice.

Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

>--
>From:  dmck...@paragon-networks.com[SMTP:dmck...@paragon-networks.com]
>Sent:  Tuesday, July 15, 1997 7:06 AM
>To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject:   Re: ESD Simulators
>
>dlo...@advanced-input.com wrote:
>> 
>> My company is looking to purchase some ESD Simulators.  There are basically
>> three manufacturers worldwide of this type eqiupment, and ESD guns are not
>> cheap.  I am interested in hearing of any experiences or information, good
>> or bad, anyone has had with particular models of ESD Simulators.  Since
>>this
>> may not be an appropriate open forum discussion topic, responses can be
>> off-line.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Darrell Locke
>> Advanced Input Devices
>
>Hi Darrell, 
>Long ago in a land far away when I first started compliance, I worked 
>for a company that used a homebrew ESD thing made from a flyback coil 
>from a tv set that could literally kill you.  They had started using 
>this thing on products due to numerous complaints from customers 
>concerning ESD events in a carpeted office environment.  Theory was 
>at the time (from the two gentlemen that ran the lab both had EE Ph.D.s) 
>if the product could survive that, it'd survive anything. 
>
>I bought a Keyteck Mini-Zapper and things settled down.  I changed jobs 
>and at the new company bought another Mini-Zapper.  But, I soon ran into 
>trouble at that time for there was (at one point in time) the need for 
>three seperate guns (three seperate human models) for Bellcore, and 
>IEC-801 series testing.  I stayed with the the MiniZapper arguing that 
>the IEC series was "more" valid than something from Bellcore due to 
>it based upon law.  Bellcore is not based upon law.  It is allowed 
>to be interpreted any way the two parties agree.  Still not satisified, 
>the customer protested and I rented from GE rental a Schaffner NSG 
>ESD gun (the specific model number escapes me but I'm sure someone 
>will know exactly what it is) that was more in line with everyone. 
>Before I left that company, it was to be regular policy to rent 
>equipment as needed rather than buy.  At the time I supported that 
>decision. 
>
>Now, at yet another company, the lab I go to uses a Compliance Design 
>device (again the model number escapes me).  I am still supporting 
>rentals and that falls into the Schaffner series when needed.
>Calibration, 
>updating to any changes for another human model (I don't think this 
>will happen soon), and storage during downtime I incur upon the rentee. 
>
>Regards,  Doug
>

RE: Re[2]: alternate test sites

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hey keep this technical will you??

Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

>--
>From:  tania.gr...@octel.com[SMTP:tania.gr...@octel.com]
>Sent:  Monday, July 14, 1997 11:51 AM
>To:emc-p...@ieee.org; Alan Hudson +44 (0)1383-821921
>Cc:jim.nado...@amp.com
>Subject:   Re[2]: alternate test sites
>
> Regarding your "cute footnote":
> 
> The same could be stated for certain husbands.  
> 
> I suggest that you show greater consideration to people; it has been 
> many many years since polygamy was outlawed by Mormons.
> 
>  Tania Grant, Octel Communications Corporation
>  A non-Mormon.
>
>
>__ Reply Separator
>_
>Subject: Re: alternate test sites
>Author:  "Alan Hudson +44 (0)1383-821921"  at 
>P_Internet_Mail
>Date:7/14/97 10:12 AM
>
>
>If I remember correctly, it's the Competent Body - the person who approves
>(hopefully!) and signs the Technical Construction File - who must be
>resident in the EU.
>
>Mind you, this is probably a moot point, now that the EU/USA have signed a
>Mutual Recognition Agreement, I assume the USA can now test/approve their
>own gear themselves.
>
>-- 
>Alan
>
>Mormons can have more than one wife. This is called polygamy.
>Christians can have only one wife.  This is called monotony.
>
>
>> From: jim.nado...@amp.com
>> To: emc-p...@ieee.org
>> Subject: alternate test sites
>> Date: Friday, July 11, 1997 10:55AM
>> 
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> These 2 questions may seem rather naive, but I never really had to
>> address
>> them.  Any help by those who have direct experience would be greatly
>> appreciated.
>> 
>> 1. I heard the statement "The EU does not accept emissions data from a
>> semi-anechoic chamber (SAC)"  Since I deal mostly with ITE, I looked in
>> EN55022-1987, para. 10.3.3 and see no mention of the use of anything but
>> an
>> OATS.  The question is "Does all testing to EN55022 have to be performed
>> at
>> an OATS or can I use a SAC which has a "good" normalized site
>> attenuation
>> (<+/- 4 dB)?"  It would seem to me that if you are self certifying, you
>> would want to be confident the equipment passes with enough margin that
>> it
>> would pass anywhere. If you felt confident using a current probe and a
>> scope, then go ahead and self-certify.
>> 
>> 2. My second question deals with the famous person who signs test
>> reports
>> and is the responsible person (i.e. jail time) should the data be found
>> to
>> be bogus.  Again, assume we are self certifying ITE equipment.  I was
>> told
>> that the responsible person must be a resident of the EU.  A company in
>> the
>> States could not self certify and place the CE mark on equipment with
>> "only" the head of quality signature, assuming the head of quality lives
>> in
>> Anytown USA.  I also heard that less than reputable companies in the
>> States
>> find "some European guy" who will sign anything and can vanish if the
>> need
>> arises.
>> 
>> Some of this sounds like urban legend to me, but I appreciate any
>> comments
>> you may have.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance...
>> 
>> Jim Nadolny
>> AMP Inc.
>> jim .nado...@amp.com
>
>
>

RE: EN 61000-3-2/3 In the Great Scheme of Things

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Nice summary Rich
Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

>--
>From:  Rich Nute[SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
>Sent:  Thursday, July 10, 1997 5:10 PM
>To:eric.lif...@natinst.com
>Cc:emc-p...@ieee.org
>Subject:   Re: EN 61000-3-2/3 In the Great Scheme of Things
>
>
>
>Hello from San Diego:
>
>
>I appreciate Eric's point of view regarding the harmonics 
>standard, EN 61000-3-2.  However, I do have some rebuttal
>remarks.  
>
>(Understand that the products that I am responsible for 
>are less than 75 watts and therefore are Class A, not Class 
>D, under the standard.  As such, the products do not need 
>PFC circuits.  So, I am largely unaffected by the outcome
>of the CENELEC BT effective date deliberations.)
>
>Personally, I disagree with the need for this standard.
>I equate it to saying that you shall not place an inductive
>load on the power line because it will cause a phase shift
>which will affect other subscribers.  But, power suppliers 
>do not say this, instead quietly installing capacitors at 
>strategic points on their own power lines to correct the 
>phase shift caused by customers' inductive loads.
>
>Power suppliers could likewise correct for non-linear loads 
>by installing "zig-zag" transformers at strategic points on 
>their own power lines.  I'm sure these are more expensive 
>than capacitors, hence they don't want to do this.
>
>The problem could be minimized by constructing distribution
>systems with much smaller LV loads and using more, yet 
>smaller, distribution transformers.  In Europe, the LV 
>distribution can be as high as 600 homes, while in North
>America the LV distribution is typically 8 homes!
>
>So, I don't like the power suppliers saying, on the one
>hand, "We will correct for whatever inductive load you 
>connect to the system," while, on the other hand, "You 
>will correct for whatever non-linear load you connect to 
>the system."
>
>June 1, 1998, has been the "effective" date since the 
>standard was announced nearly 4 years ago.  The date has
>NEVER been changed, although there have been many attempts
>to change (delay) it.
>
>As of today, effort is continuing to change the effective 
>date to January 1, 2001.  I have NO knowledge as to who
>is driving the proposal to change the date, nor do I know
>the process, nor do I have any knowledge that suggests 
>a probability for adoption.
>
>The antics of those who have proposed a delayed effective 
>date together with the antics of the CENELEC BT have indeed
>confused the situation.  Nevertheless, there has been NO
>official word at any time as to any change to the June 1, 
>1998 effective date.
>
>Here's an anecdote.  In 1994, we started a new product 
>with lifetime expected to extend beyond June 1, 1998.  We 
>developed two power supplies, one with PFC and one without 
>PFC.  Our plan is to use the non-PFC until early 1998, 
>and then switch to the PFC power supply.  The two power 
>supplies use essentially the same board, the non-PFC 
>having fewer parts.  We continue to use the non-PFC after 
>June 1, 1998, for non-CE markets.
>
>In all of my postings to this group, I have been very
>careful to say that you should not rely on my reports of
>the efforts to delay the effective date.  In my opinion,
>a manufacturer must deal with the "official" effective
>dates first, and have a backup plan to deal with a date
>change.
>
>The current status is that June 1, 1998, is the effective
>date for the standard.  
>
>The risk of non-compliance is no or delayed sales in the 
>EC.
>
>The risk of early compliance is higher prices.
>
>The risk of a back-up plan is higher development costs.
>
>I don't like any of the choices!
>
>
>Best regards,
>Rich
>
>
>
>

RE: EN61000-3-2

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

OK Here is the latest information I have received from CENELEC.

Last week's Technical Board (BT) meeting confirmed that the
dow of EN 61000-3-2 and 61000-3-3 is 2001-01-01 for all
products.

BT also decided to launch a 2month vote on the withdrawal of
EN 61000-3-2/A12 (that set the dow for 61000-3-2 at
1998-06-01, but was never published in the Official Journal
as a harmonized EMC standard.

This appears to indicate that the application date for EN61000-3-2/3 is
2001-01-01.

Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

>--
>From:  Fred Waechter[SMTP:w...@skybest.com]
>Sent:  Wednesday, July 09, 1997 1:06 PM
>To:emc-pstc
>Subject:   EN61000-3-2
>
>Hi All,
>
>I keep hearing conflicting stories about when EN61000-3-2 takes effect.
>Is it still June 1998 or has it been delayed until Jan. 1, 2001. Does
>anyone know. Please help!
>
>Thanks.
>
>-- 
>Fred Waechter
>Sr. Applications Engr.
>SMPS Consulting
>w...@skybest.com
>Phone/FAX: 910-246-5236
>
>

RE: Receivers, Digital Spectrum Analyzers, Analog Spectrum Analyzers

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

I agree with your comment vis-à-vis field strength etc..  As long as the
reading is accurate, the equipment type is moot. 
However the attainment of this desired goal is not straight forward.

I am a conservative type and have concerns with dSAs in two areas.
First, dSAs (at least the one I use )
do not commonly have an average detector so post detection filtering
(i.e. the VB)  is employed to emulate average detection. Second,
although the dSA has  a QP detector, normally many manual steps are
required to set the analyzer up to read the QP. For example, it is easy
to set the RB incorrectly and throw off the final QP reading. Let me add
though that - correctly used-
the dSA is fast AND accurate with the sole concern of the average
detection.

I have always had a receiver at hand to check any measurements in
dispute.

aSAs - The only one I used was a Tek plug-in (years ago!!).

In answer to your questions:
>(1) Given the same EUT setup want it to be> and the same antenna setup 
>, 
>Which would you choose 
>digital SA (dSA), 
>analog SA (aSA), 
>or reciever? 

Answer (1) dSA with the receiver standing by for any measurements in
dispute.
>
>(2) Given the same EUT setup want it to be> and the same antenna setup 
>, 
>how close should each measurement made by 
>dSA, aSA, or reciever be?  
>Identical?

Answer (2) the dSA & the aSA should match the receiver within 0.5dB.
Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

>--
>From:  dmck...@paragon-networks.com[SMTP:dmck...@paragon-networks.com]
>Sent:  Monday, June 30, 1997 3:10 PM
>To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject:   Recievers, Digital Spectrum Analyzers, Analog Spectrum Analyzers
>
>I personally have had a preference for 
>analog Spectrum analyzers for measurements. 
>I've always had trouble accepting sampling 
>rates, windowing, ... of the digital SA's. 
>I have used recievers only twice. But that's 
>just me.  If I can measure the same field 
>strength with a digital SA or analog SA or 
>a reciever, so what?  
>
>Well, the "so what" is why I'm asking two 
>questions: 
>
>(1) Given the same EUT setup want it to be> and the same antenna setup 
>, 
>Which would you choose 
>digital SA (dSA), 
>analog SA (aSA), 
>or reciever? 
>
>(2) Given the same EUT setup want it to be> and the same antenna setup 
>, 
>how close should each measurement made by 
>dSA, aSA, or reciever be?  
>Identical?
>

ITE Immunity Questions

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Greetings All,

My company manufactures ITE equipment tested and verified to EN55022 and
EN50082-1 the generic
light immunity standard. With impending release of CISPR24 some
questions come to mind.

1. Does the new ITE immunity standard apply to equipment in a warehouse
(i.e. NOT put into service?).

2. Does the new ITE immunity standard apply to equipment already put
into service and functioning
satisfactorily at a customer site?

3. Does the new ITE immunity standard apply to equipment that is being
phased out - the phase out
date being AFTER the release of the new ITE immunity standard?

4. Does the new ITE immunity standard apply to equipment that is part of
a Direct Field Transfer. That is,
removed from one customers site and installed at a different customer
site with only 
cosmetic changes?

5. Does the new ITE immunity standard apply to equipment that have
upgrades installed after the
release of the new standard.?

6. Is there a transition period in the new ITE immunity standard?


Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you
Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

RE: EN50082-1:1996

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

The latest I have from CENELEC is:
EN 50082-1:199X was ratified. Implementation dates:
doa: 1997-06-01, dop: 1997-12-01, dow: 2001-01-01
Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

>--
>From:  Randy Stephens[SMTP:steph...@vivanet.com]
>Sent:  Friday, June 20, 1997 8:02 AM
>To:emc-p...@ieee.org
>Subject:   EN50082-1:1996
>
>Does anyone know the status of EN 50082-1:1996 ? Has it passed yet and
>if so, when will it be printed in the OJ?
>
>
>Randy Stephens
>Trek, Inc.
>Medina, NY
>http://www.trekinc.com
>

RE: EMC REGULATIONS IN TAIWAN

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hi Jim,

I have actively pursuing info on the BCIQ & would be happy to share what
I have "unearthed". Most of this information is as a result of
conversation with an officer at the BCIQ.

> Question #1: Can anyone confirm that the above information is still 
> accurate (i.e. that the situation hasn't changed since the article was 
> written)?

The situation IS accurate.
> 
> Question #2: Does anyone know if there is a "grace period" for 
> products already being marketed in Taiwan?

There is NO "grace period per se. However, if your product is
physically IN Taiwan ROC BEFORE
the requisite date (e.g. in a warehouse) then you may install the
product after the date WITHOUT accreditation.
You will not be able to import product INTO Taiwan ROC AFTER that date.

> 
> Question #3:  Can anyone give us an idea how difficult it may be to 
> obtain the BCIQ type-approval certificate?
> 
The BCIQ have provided some relief. The BCIQ have a "temporary" EME lab
accredidation process. If the lab
is NVLAP approved, then they will grant a one year temporary
accrediadation for the lab. This is a paperwork
exercise and should take 2-3 weeks.

Now, after the lab has the accreditation, you make use data from that
lab as a submittal for your product.
I have also been told that you may use data taken PRIOR to the lab
accreditation as long as the test report
from the lab is dated AFTER the accreditation.

"Type approval" certification should take 3-4 weeks AFTER receipt at
the BCIQ.

Oh by the way they do NOT like to do buisness DIRECTLY with a
manufacturer. You will need some kind
of lab/consulting service in Taipai to talk with the BCIQ. I was
politely moved off in that direction!!


>They have a website. It is http://www.moeabciq.gov.tw/

Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

>--
>From:  Jim Hulbert[SMTP:hulbe...@pb.com]
>Sent:  Thursday, June 05, 1997 3:19 PM
>To:emc-p...@ieee.org
>Subject:   EMC REGULATIONS IN TAIWAN
>
> Greetings everyone!
> 
> I have read in the Compliance Engineering 1997 Reference Guide (and 
> I'm sure that most of you have, too) that Taiwan is implementing EMC 
> regulations which require a type-approval certificate from the Bureau 
> of Commodity Inspection and Quarantine (BCIQ) for just about any 
> electronic product.  According to the article, only emissions are 
> covered at this time and, like other countries entering the EMC 
> regulation arena, the IEC/CISPR standards are being copied.  However, 
> the article also states that the BCIQ  presently only accepts test 
> data from BCIQ accredited laboratories and that these laboratories 
> only exist in Taiwan.  (Does this sound like protectionism?)  They are 
> apparently phasing in mandatory compliance for different product 
> categories: January 1, 1997 for copiers, July 1, 1997 for ITE, fax 
> machines, TV's/radios, January 1, 1998 for appliances, phones and 
> audio equipment, and July 1, 1998 for everything else.
> 
> Question #1: Can anyone confirm that the above information is still 
> accurate (i.e. that the situation hasn't changed since the article was 
> written)?
> 
> Question #2: Does anyone know if there is a "grace period" for 
> products already being marketed in Taiwan?
> 
> Question #3:  Can anyone give us an idea how difficult it may be to 
> obtain the BCIQ type-approval certificate?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> __
> Jim HulbertTel:203-924-3621
> Senior Engineer - EMC  Fax:203-924-3352
> Pitney Bowes   email:  hulbe...@pb.com
> P.O. Box 3000
> 35 Waterview Drive
> Shelton, CT  06484-8000  U.S.A.
> 
>
>
>  
> 
>
>

RE: EN61000-3-2 - RUMOURS

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

This is the information I have managed to get from Cenelec. It directly
contradicts earlier statements published 
on this site. I have asked for clarification.

CENELEC statement:
>"Like I explained in an earlier email the "dow" (date for
>withdrawal of conflicting standards) of 2001-01-01 was
>proposed for EN 61000-3-2 and 3-3 in March, subject to a
>one-month wait for comments. As we've received comments on
>the above dow, the matter will be submitted to our July
meeting of the CENELEC Technical Board. So for the time 
being, there's nothing really decisive to say."

Until I know different, I am sticking with the June 1 1998 date.

Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

>--
>From:  Vi Van (MEPCD)[SMTP:v...@apricot.mee.com]
>Sent:  Tuesday, May 27, 1997 10:08 AM
>To:'emc-p...@ieee.org'
>Subject:   EN61000-3-2 - RUMOURS
>
>Dear All,
>
>Have anyone got any news regarding the mandatory date for harmonics
>requirement in Europe?
>I heard 2 stories, one says 1.1.2001 and the other says 1.1.98, which of
>those are true?
>Any comments please!
>
>Best Regards
>
>Vi Van
>EMC engineer
>Mitsubishi PC
>>
>

BCIQ - Taiwan EMC Law

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

I have been struggling with getting information on the new BCIQ law out 
of Taiwan.  Can anyone out there help?
 
For starters, is there a handy guide published anywhere?
 
Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

ESD testing survey.

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Greetings group!

I would like to take a survey of the ESD testing practices prevalent in
manufacturers of electronic equipment. The purpose of this information
is to get a better understanding of the alignment of my company with
respect
to the industry and ESD testing in particular. Basically - is my company
overtesting?
 Our current practice is to test  what is legally required, naturally,
but we have also been performing tests to ANSI C63.16. This requires
higher test levels and a large number of discharges to obtain the MTBUR.

Can any of you supply information (without selling the farm!) on the ESD
specifications that you test to & whether the legally mandated ESD test
is exceeded.

Thanx

The results of the survey will be complied and published on this group -
no names mentioned!!


Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

RE: Certified Devices

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

The answer to question is the same..

I also came from a major PC vendor and shared some of the experiences of my 
collegues.

The three vendors I gave you (Seagate, Maxtor & Quantum) all put significant 
time & money into EMC and
test their drives at a component level. They all strive to meet the Class B 
levels OUTSIDE of a case with margin.

Immunity - well outside of a case is asking a bit much!!
Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

--
From:   Chris Herkey[SMTP:e...@attotech.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, April 22, 1997 6:46 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:Certified Devices

I must apologize for my first submission of this message.  I didn't specify
clearly what I needed.  Let me try again and let's see what we can come up
with.  Thank you to all that did respond, though.  I found that info equally
informative.

Does anyone know where I might find a list of hard drives that are already
mounted in enclosures and sold that way and are certified FCC class B and
CE?  Or perhaps someone knows of a manufacturer?

I need singled-ended and differential SCSI drives...

Thank you,

Chris Herkey

RE: Standards Titles

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Good question.

The answer is I don't really know. 

I have been trying to find out.
Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

--
From:   dmck...@paragon-networks.com[SMTP:dmck...@paragon-networks.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, April 22, 1997 8:31 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject:Re: Standards Titles

Grasso, Charles (Chaz) wrote:
> 
> Hi - The information I have is this:
> 
> Canada:   ICES-003: 1994 Emissions  No Immunity

 Hi Charles, 

 "Whatever happened to" Canada C108.8 A, superceded? 

 Regards


  ---
  The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
  and do not reflect those of my employer.   
  ---

RE: Standards Titles

[Grasso, Charles (Chaz)]

Hi - The information I have is this:

Canada:   ICES-003: 1994 Emissions  No Immunity

Australia: AS/NZS 3548: Emissions for ITE
   AS/NZS 4251.1:1994 Generic Emissions
   AS/NZS: 4542.1:1994 Generic Immunity (Not required YET at least for 
ITE)
Charles Grasso
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115

--
From:   r_flind...@emulex.com[SMTP:r_flind...@emulex.com]
Sent:   Monday, April 21, 1997 2:29 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org; emfld...@listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu
Subject:Standards Titles


Can someone please give me the current required emissions standards (specs) 
for Canada and Australia?  I need the spec name (document number), title, 
and published date.

Thanks!



Randall T. Flinders
EMC Test Engineer
Emulex Network Systems